Begandy v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-639

JUSTIN BEGANDY, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-639

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 18, 2021

Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court¹ is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) filed by state prisoner Justin Begandy ("Petitioner"). He challenges the decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("Board") about whether to release him on parole. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Petition and deny a certificate of appealability.

I. Background

In March 2007, Petitioner was charged by Information filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (the "trial court") with one count each of robbery (Count 1), criminal attempt to commit the crime of kidnapping (Count 2),² aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count 3),terroristic threats (Count 4), possessing instruments of crime (Count 5), simple assault (Count 6), and recklessly endangering another person (Count 7). (Pet's Ex. F, ECF No. 4-1 at pp. 49-51.) These charges stemmed from an incident that occurred on December 17, 2006. (Id.); see also Commonwealth v. Begandy, 1306 WDA 2013, 2014 WL 10795084, *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2014) ("Begandy I"). On that date, Petitioner approached the victim as she was exiting her car parked at a Pittsburgh area mall. Petitioner "forced his way into her car and attacked her with a steak knife." Id. The victim eventually "managed to free herself and fled into the mall. She had suffered a laceration to her finger as [Petitioner] swung the knife at her." Begandy I, 2014 WL 10795084 at *1 n.2.

On May 21, 2009, Petitioner "entered an open plea of nolo contendere to all charges, except the robbery charge." Id. at *1. (See also Pet's Ex. G, Plea Hr'g Tr., 5/21/09, ECF No. 4-1 at pp. 53-55.) Petitioner's sentencing hearing was held on August 12, 2009. Begandy I, 2014 WL 10795084 at *1. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of twelve years and four months to forty years of incarceration.³ Petitioner's minimum sentence date expired on April 18, 2019. His maximum sentence date is December 18, 2046.

The trial court's original printed sentencing order erroneously indicated that Count 2 of the Information was the crime of kidnapping instead of the crime of attempted kidnapping. Begandy I, 2014 WL 10795084 at *3 n.6. It appears that, as a result, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' ("DOC's") DC16E Sentence Status Summary sheet contained the same error. (Pet's Ex. A, ECF No. 4-1 at p. 4; Resp's Ex. B, ECF No. 14-1 at p. 2.) Importantly, there is no allegationthat the error in the trial court's original printed order affected the length of the term the trial court imposed at Count 2.

The trial court subsequently issued a corrected sentencing order which accurately reflected that Petitioner was sentenced at Count 2 for the crime of attempted kidnapping. Begandy I, 2014 WL 10795084 at *3 n.6; see also Commonwealth v. Begandy, 1210 WDA 2015, 2016 WL 5528684, *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2016) ("Begandy II"). However, it appears that no correction was made to Petitioner's DOC's DC16E Sentence Status Summary sheet. (See Pet's Ex. A, ECF No. 4-1 at p. 4; Resp's Ex. B, ECF No. 14-1 at p. 2.)

In June 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for collateral relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). Begandy I, 2014 WL 10795084 at *1. He asserted that his sentence was illegal because the trial court did not have the authority to issue the corrected sentencing order. The trial court denied Petitioner's PCRA motion and the Superior Court affirmed in Begandy I, which it issued on October 1, 2014. Id. at *1-4.

In July 2015, the trial court granted Petitioner's motion for nunc pro tunc relief and permitted him to file a direct appeal of his judgment of sentence. See Begandy II, 2016 WL 5528684 at *1. Petitioner once again argued that his sentence was illegal because of the trial court's erroneous original printed sentencing order. Id. On August 31, 2016, the Superior Court issued Begandy II and quashed Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it concluded that Petitioner's motion for nunc pro tunc relief was in actuality an untimely second PCRA petition. Id. at *1-2.

Although the trial court had corrected its original printed sentencing and the Superior Court's decisions in Begandy I and Begandy II accurately reflected the crimes for which Petitioner was charged and sentenced, as late as December 2017 the trial court's electronic docket sheet stillerroneously indicated that at Count 2 Petitioner had been sentenced for the crime of kidnapping instead of the crime of attempted kidnapping. (See Pet's Ex. K.1, ECF No. 4-1 at p. 66.) Therefore, Petitioner sent a request to Carole Eddins, the Court Administrator for the criminal division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. He asked that the error on the trial court's electronic docket sheet be corrected. (See Pet's Ex. D, Begandy v. Clerk of Courts of Allegheny County, et al., 443 MD 2018, slip op. (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 29, 2019) ("Begandy III"), ECF No. 4-1 at pp. 9-10.)

Eddins responded to Petitioner in correspondence dated March 6, 2018. She informed him that the electronic docket sheet had been revised to correct the error. (Id. at p.10.) A printout of Petitioner's electronic docket sheet dated May 14, 2018 confirms that by that date the trial court's electronic docket sheet accurately reflected that at Count 2 Petitioner had been charged with, and sentenced for, committing the crime of attempted kidnapping. (Pet's Ex. K.2, ECF No. 4-1 at p. 67.)

In June 2018, Petitioner filed a mandamus petition in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania against Eddins and the Clerk of Courts of Allegheny County. In this mandamus action, Petitioner sought an order of court directing the Clerk of Courts of Allegheny County to make further corrections to the trial court's electronic docket sheet. (Pet's Ex. D, Begandy III, ECF No. 4-1 at pp. 10-11.) On March 29, 2019, the Commonwealth Court issued Begandy III. Therein, it explained that it was transferring the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which has general supervisory authority over the state courts. (Id. at pp. 16-18.) The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Petitioner's mandamus petition on August 1, 2019. See Order in Begandy v. Clerk of Courts Allegheny et al., 27 WM 2019 (Pa. Aug. 1, 2019).

Petitioner's parole interview was held on December 17, 2018, when his mandamus action was pending before the Commonwealth Court. His interview was conducted by Board Member Leslie Grey and Hearing Examiner Carrie Everett. (ECF No. 4 at p. 16.) According to Petitioner, Grey and Everett asked him about the offense of kidnapping since his DC16E Sentence Status Summary sheet still indicated that at Count 2 he was sentenced for that offense. Petitioner explained to Grey and Everett that he was not charged with, or sentenced for, the offense of kidnapping and that he could produce proof if they required it. (ECF No. 4 at p. 17.) There is nothing in the record to indicate that Grey and Everett did not accept Petitioner's accurate explanation regarding Count 2.

According to Petitioner, Grey and Everett also asked him about a detainer that federal officials had lodged with the DOC.⁴ Petitioner advised Grey and Everett that his federal sentence would have expired on October 27, 2017 and, therefore, the federal detainer should be removed. (See Pet's Ex. C, ECF No. 4-1 at pp. 7-8.)

The Board issued a decision in Petitioner's case on December 24, 2018. (Pet's Ex. A, ECF No. 4-1 a p. 2). It explained that "following an interview with you and a review of your file, and having considered all matters required[,]" it had determined, in the exercise of its discretion, that he was denied parole. (Id.) The Board explained:

The reasons for [its] decision include the following:

Your prior unsatisfactory parole supervision history.⁵

Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed.

Your lack of remorse for the offense(s) committed.

(Id.) The Board also advised Petitioner that he would be considered for parole again "in or after December, 2020[,]" and that at his next interview it would review his file and consider whether he "maintained a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections," "maintained a clear conduct record," and an "update of federal detainer/time owed, if any to be available at time of review." (Id.)

In the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) Petitioner filed with this Court, he claims that the Board's decision to deny him parole violated his right to due process, was in retaliation for the mandamus action he filed in 2018 to correct the errors on the trial court's electronic docket, and violated his right against self-incrimination. Respondents have filed their Answer (ECF No. 14) and Petitioner has filed his Reply (ECF No. 27). Neither party has notified the Court that the Board has issued any parole decision regarding Petitioner since it issued the December 2018 decision at issue in this case.

II. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction

The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is the federal habeas statute applicable to prisoners in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment. It permits a federal court to grant a state prisoner a writ of habeas corpus "on the ground that he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution...of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is Petitioner's burden to provethat he is entitled to the writ. Id.; see, e.g., Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2017).

B. The Exhaustion Requirement

State prisoners typically must "exhaust their claims in state court before seeking relief in federal courts." Slutzker v. Johnson, 393 F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A)). In 2005...