A. C. Wheeler v. PA Dept of Corrections (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Aaron Christopher Wheeler, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : No. 464 M.D. 2007 : Submitted: February 29, 2008 HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: March 25, 2008 Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Department of Corrections (Department) to a mandamus petition1 filed by Aaron Christopher Wheeler (Wheeler) pro se alleging that the Department unconstitutionally: 1) changed his sentences from concurrent to consecutive; 2) aggregated two completed sentences to force him to re-serve a longer sentence; 3) altered his detainers from two to seven; and 4) deprived him of 1 A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy designed to compel a public official's performance of a ministerial act and may be issued only where (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to enforce the performance of an act, (2) the defendant has a corresponding duty to perform the act, and (3) the petitioner has no other adequate and appropriate remedy. Silo v. Commonwealth, 886 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). constructive parole or a hearing notice providing the reasons for denying him parole. Because Wheeler fails to demonstrate a clear right to relief, we sustain the Department s preliminary objections and dismiss his petition for review. Wheeler is an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Wheeler s petition for review alleges that on July 28, 1993, he was sentenced by the Honorable David N. Savitt to two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for second degree murder (Bill Nos. 1810, 1821); concurrent terms of four to 10 years for the offense of criminal conspiracy (Bill Nos. 1817, 1826); and concurrent terms of one to two years for the offense of possession of an instrument of crime (Bill Nos. 1815, 1825). Again, according to the petition, on June 6, 1994, Wheeler was sentenced by the Honorable Arthur F. Kafrissen to an aggregated term of 27½ - 55 years imprisonment to be served consecutive to the life sentences imposed for Bill Nos. 1810 and 1821. The individual sentences included 10-20 years for aggravated assault (Bill No. 1837); 10-20 years for robbery (Bill No. 1835); five to 10 years for criminal conspiracy (Bill No. 1841); and two and one-half to five years for possession of an instrument of crime (Bill No. 1839). Wheeler alleges that some time after filing his Application for Clemency with the Board of Pardons in 1993, the Department unconstitutionally: ¢ Changed the concurrently imposed sentences of Judge Savitt to consecutive sentences; ¢ Aggregated his completed concurrent one to two year sentence (Bill No. 1815) with the four to 10 year concurrent sentence (Bill No. 1817) and ordered him to re-serve them as a five to 12 year sentence after the completion of his life sentence imposed for Bill No. 1810; and 2 ¢ Increased his detainers from two (one for the life sentence in Bill No. 1821 and one for the remainder of the aggregated 27½ - 55 year sentence) to seven detainers, which forces him to re-enter the system and make parole after the completion of his life sentences on seven different occasions, rather than just two. Wheeler asks this Court to order the Department to change his sentences to the way they appeared on his Sentence Summary Sheet from 1993 until his Application for Clemency was filed on August 8, 2003, and to direct the Department to hold a parole interview and hearing. The Department has filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer contending that Wheeler s petition for review fails to plead any facts to show that the Department improperly: 1) changed court-imposed sentences from concurrent to consecutive; 2) aggregated any sentence; or 3) ordered Wheeler to reserve any sentence. It also contends that Wheeler has not pled facts to demonstrate that the Department has a duty or that Wheeler has a right to have his sentences calculated differently and his detainers listed collectively.2 At the outset, because Wheeler was sentenced to two life sentences served consecutively and then after those sentences have been served, he must serve 2 In ruling upon preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the Court must accept as true all well-pled facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom, and it must determine whether the facts pled are legally sufficient to permit the action to continue. Karnes v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 921 A.2d 591 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). For the Court to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery, and all doubt must be resolved in favor of refusing to sustain the objections. Baravordeh v. Borough Council of Prospect Park, 706 A.2d 362 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 3 another sentence of 27½ - 55 years, the resolution of this matter cannot produce any immediate or practical result. Essentially, this is the proverbial academic exercise. In Pennsylvania, a life sentence is a sentence for life; there is no possibility of parole. Section 1102(b) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S. §1102(b); see also Castle v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 554 A.2d 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Wheeler is serving the first of two consecutive life sentences, from which he will never be paroled and never serve his second life sentence or the additional consecutive sentence of 27½ - 55 years. To say that Wheeler is not entitled to a parole hearing because he will never be eligible for parole is to state more than the obvious. Even though Wheeler s remaining two claims are similarly academic, we will address them because although he will never be entitled to parole, he is still entitled to have the official record set forth his sentences correctly. Regarding Wheeler s contention that his sentences for conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime imposed by Judge Savitt were altered from concurrent to consecutive and then aggregated, there is nothing on Wheeler s Status Summary, closed on February 4, 2005; to indicate that Bill No. 1815 or Bill No. 1817 were changed from concurrent to consecutive sentences. To the contrary, the exhibits show and the Department agrees that both sentences were to be served concurrently to the life sentence (Bill No. 1810) and both have since expired. As to Wheeler s argument regarding the separate listing of the detainers, he alleges that the Department originally listed only two detainers, one for Bill No. 1821 and the other for the aggregated sentence imposed for Bill No. 1835. As best 4 we can make out, Wheeler is contending that he is entitled to have his consecutive and under-lapping sentences consolidated on his sentence status report so that he only has one detainer lodged against him. Because the Department has no duty to list his sentences collectively and the number of detainers has no impact on the length of Wheeler s sentence or his eligibility for parole, occurring when Wheeler has served his minimum sentence on his crimes, which in Wheeler s case is never, an action in mandamus is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Department s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer are sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed. _____________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE 5 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Aaron Christopher Wheeler, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 464 M.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2008, the preliminary objections of the Department of Corrections are sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed. _____________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
