J-S71028-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CHARLES STANLEY
Appellant No. 959 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-23-CR-0005974-2004
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 31, 2016
Charles Stanley (“Appellant”) appeals from the order denying as
untimely filed his most recent petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In dismissing a previously filed
“Petition Seeking Correction of Sentence – Credit for Time Served,” the court
correctly instructed Appellant that if he thought the Bureau of Corrections
erroneously computed his sentence the appropriate vehicle for redress would
be to file an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the
Bureau’s computation. See Order, 9/29/15, at 1. See also Commonwealth
v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 513 (Pa. Super. 1989) (explaining that a challenge
to the Department of Corrections’ computation or construction of sentence is
____________________________________________
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S71028-16
not actionable under the PCRA); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a)(1). In so holding, the
court acknowledged that Appellant’s sentencing order indicated he should
receive credit for time served “as he is entitled to by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Order, 9/29/15, at 1.
Our review of the record confirms no ambiguity in the sentence. See
generally Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 395 (Pa. Super.
2014) (explaining it is only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a
trial court’s alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law
that a challenge to the sentence is deemed cognizable as a due process
claim under the PCRA).
Although Appellant confirmed with the Bureau of Corrections that he
did not receive any credit, he filed another PCRA petition in this Court rather
than an original action in the Commonwealth Court. Appellant needs to seek
relief in the Commonwealth Court. See Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604
A.2d 723, 725 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“It is well-settled that if an alleged
sentencing error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of
sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, the appropriate recourse would be an
original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s
computation.”)
Thus, because Appellant’s claim is not cognizable under the PCRA, we
affirm the order denying relief.
Order affirmed.
-2-
J-S71028-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/31/2016
-3-