Appealed From No. Parole No. 8457-T. State Agency Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
Before: Honorable Rochelle S. Friedman, Judge, Honorable Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, Judge, Honorable Charles A. Lord, Senior Judge. Judge Leadbetter Dissents. Opinion BY Judge Friedman.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Friedman
OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
David Cranshaw appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying Cranshaw's request for administrative relief after the Board imposed backtime in excess of the maximum presumptive range because Cranshaw is a repeat sex offender.
Cranshaw was serving a five-year to twenty-year sentence for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and ten years probation for sexually abusing children when, on October 8, 1992, the Board authorized Cranshaw's release on parole. (C.R. at 1, 4.)
While on parole, Cranshaw sought permission to move to his home state of Florida. After making the request, Cranshaw grew tired of waiting and simply left Pennsylvania to live in Florida. (C.R. at 26-27.) As a result, the Board declared Cranshaw delinquent as of March 14, 1994. (C.R. at 7.) On August 30, 1995, the Board's Director of Interstate Services issued an arrest warrant for Cranshaw based on his parole violation. (C.R. at 8.) Cranshaw was subsequently arrested and returned to Pennsylvania as a technical parole violator. (C.R. at 9, 32.)
On September 26, 1995, Cranshaw was arrested in Pennsylvania on three counts of indecent assault and one count of corruption of minors. On November 13, 1995, Cranshaw pled guilty to corruption of minors, a first degree misdemeanor, and was sentenced to two and a half to five years, with 50 days credit. The remaining charges were dismissed. (C.R. at 11.)
The Board held a panel revocation hearing on February 9, 1996. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Board recommitted Cranshaw as a convicted parole violator to serve 60 months backtime. Although the presumptive range of parole backtime following conviction for corruption of minors is only 18 to 24 months, *fn1 the Board indicated that the 60 months backtime was justified here because Cranshaw is a repeat sex offender. *fn2 Cranshaw requested administrative relief, which the Board denied.
On appeal to this court, *fn3 Cranshaw argues that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the deviation from the presumptive range of parole backtime following conviction for corruption of minors. *fn4 In particular, Cranshaw contends that there is no evidence here that his conviction for corruption of minors was a sex-related offense or that he is a repeat sex offender. We agree.
The Board's written justification for exceeding the presumptive range in this case was "repeat sex offender." However, Cranshaw's conviction was for corruption of minors, which is not necessarily a sex offense. The district attorney charged Cranshaw as follows:
THE DEFENDANT DID, on or about JUNE 1, 1993 THROUGH JANUARY 29, 1994, in the County aforesaid, being of age eighteen years or upward, did by his/her actions corrupt or tend to corrupt the morals of a minor, being less than eighteen years of age, or did aid, abet, entice or encourage said minor in the commission of a crime, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a).[ *fn5 ] Grading: M1.
(C.R. at 36.) Unfortunately, this description of the charge provides no details about the underlying facts which precipitated the charge. Although it is evident from Cranshaw's testimony that he has struggled with a sexual problem for much of his life, the Board never asked Cranshaw whether his conviction for corruption of minors was related to his sexual tendencies.
Because the record does not support the Board's finding that Cranshaw's conviction for corruption of minors is another sex offense, we reverse and remand this case for an appropriate recommitment consistent with the facts asserted by the Commonwealth which gave rise to Cranshaw's guilty plea at criminal indictment number CP3270 ...