J-S03002-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
LATEEF KHADEEN WATTS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY,
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION
AND PAROLE,
Appellees No. 2845 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008178-2005
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 26, 2018
Lateef Khadeen Watts (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order
entered on July 31, 2017, that dismissed his petition for writ of habeas
corpus on the basis that Appellant’s maximum sentence had not yet expired
and, therefore, the claims Appellant asserted did not fall within the trial
court’s jurisdiction, citing Commonwealth, Department of Correction v.
Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001). After review, we affirm.
As stated verbatim in his brief, Appellant raises the following issues in
this appeal:
[A.] Did the Common Pleas Court err in dismissing Appellant’s
habeas Corpus Petition under the auspice that his original
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03002-18
judgment of sentence was NOT completed, thus, misapplying the
facts for which was presented, and dismissing his habeas Petition
erroneously?
[B.] Did the court of Common Pleas err in dismissing Appellant
Habeas Corpus Petition where he suffers a unconstitutional
detention against a judicially imposed order issued by Delaware
Count court of Common Pleas whereas Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole unconstitutionally altered his original
maximum sentence without constitutional, statutory, and judicial
authority, thus violating Appellant’s 14th, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 5th
Amendment rights y a continued forced incarceration?
[C.] Whether the Court of Common Pleas err’d in dismissing
Appellant’s Habeas Corpus Petition when his rights to the Due
Process Clause “Liberty Interest” continues to be violated by
Governmental State Agency, pursuant to both State and Federal
Constitutional mandates?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Despite Appellant’s statement of the issues that he attempts to raise in
this appeal, the essence of his arguments centers on his allegation that the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) erred in recalculating his
maximum release date, which this Court stated in Reese is not a proper use
of a writ of habeas corpus. See Reese, 774 A.2d at 1261. Moreover, under
the circumstances here, Appellant’s challenge should proceed through the
PBPP’s administrative process with any appeal directed to the
Commonwealth Court. See id. at 1260.
We have reviewed the certified record, Appellant’s brief,1 the
applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable James P. Bradley
____________________________________________
1The Commonwealth/PBPP has not submitted a brief in connection with this
appeal.
-2-
J-S03002-18
of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated September 20,
2017. We conclude that Judge Bradley’s opinion accurately disposes of the
arguments raised by Appellant on appeal and we discern no abuse of
discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bradley’s opinion as
our own and affirm the July 31, 2017 order on that basis.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/26/18
-3-