J-S37041-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JULIO ORTIZ
Appellant No. 3104 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 16, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002619-1989
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2015
Julio Ortiz appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County dismissing as untimely his pro se petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (PCRA). After our review,
we affirm.
In his petition, titled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” Ortiz
claimed the Board of Probation and Parole erred in extending his maximum
sentence, which expired on March 5, 2014, to July 28, 2024. He claimed
that the Board’s calculation was improper. Appellant’s Pro Se Brief, at 2.
The PCRA court filed a notice of intent to dismiss Ortiz’s petition as untimely
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. In his response to the Rule 907 notice, Ortiz
did not address the timeliness issue, and instead claimed the court erred in
treating his habeas corpus petition as a PCRA petition.
J-S37041-15
First, we note that the court properly treated Ortiz’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus as a PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (“The action
established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral
relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the
same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas
corpus and coram nobis.”). Additionally, because this challenge is to an
administrative determination of the Board of Probation and Parole, it is not
cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a). Where “the
alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of
sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for
redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging
the Board’s computation.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 512-
513 (Pa. Super. 1989).
We therefore affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of this case without
prejudice to Ortiz’s right to file an original action in the Commonwealth
Court. Perry, supra.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/2015
-2-