K. Wyatt v. J. A. Beard, Ph.D., et al. (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kevin Wyatt, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D. Secretary of Corrections S.C.I. @ Graterford, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : : No. 558 M.D. 2007 Submitted: June 6, 2008 HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE McCLOSKEY FILED: July 25, 2008 Presently before this Court is the preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer filed on behalf of Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (hereafter collectively referred to as the Secretary), in response to a pro se petition for review filed by Kevin Wyatt (Petitioner). Specifically, the petition for review sought an order directing the Secretary to award Petitioner credit for time served of twelve years and five months and to recalculate his sentence.1 For the reasons that follow, we sustain the Secretary s demurrer and dismiss Petitioner s petition for review. 1 2004. Petitioner sought credit for a period of incarceration from August 14, 1991, to January 26, This case has a lengthy factual history and can best be summarized as follows. On March 10, 1992, a jury found Petitioner guilty of murder of the first degree, two counts of robbery and criminal conspiracy. Subsequently, on June 1, 1993, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder charge and separate terms of ten (10) to twenty (20) years on each of the two robbery charges, to be served consecutive to each other but concurrent to the life sentence. Petitioner received a suspended sentence relating to his conviction on the criminal conspiracy charge. Petitioner thereafter appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which remanded the case to the trial court.2 Following the remand, the trial court concluded that Petitioner had waived his Miranda rights and had confessed to his participation in the robbery/murder. Petitioner again appealed to the Superior Court, but the Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.3 Petitioner then filed a petition with the trial court seeking relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. C.S. ยงยง9541-9546. The trial court, however, denied such relief. Petitioner appealed this denial to our Superior Court. 2 The Superior Court remanded the case with directions to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether Petitioner had asserted his non-offense-specific-Miranda-Edwards right to counsel at the time of his arrest on unrelated charges. More specifically, Petitioner alleged that the police had violated his constitutional rights when they interrogated him regarding the aforementioned murder and robbery while in custody on unrelated charges and after he had requested an attorney with respect to these unrelated charges. The Court also directed that if the hearing revealed that Petitioner had asserted such a right, the trial court should order a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 669 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1995), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 548 Pa. 681, 699 A.2d 735 (1997). 3 See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 688 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 548 Pa. 681, 699 A.2d 735 (1997). 2 By unreported opinion and order dated July 16, 2001, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of relief as to the robbery charges, but reversed the denial of relief as to the first-degree murder charge, vacated Petitioner s conviction in this regard and remanded to the trial court for a new trial solely as to this charge.4 Nevertheless, while on remand, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of third-degree murder on January 26, 2004. The same day, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of ten (10) to twenty (20) years, to run consecutively to the previously imposed robbery sentences.5 Around the same time as his PCRA petitions, Petitioner filed his first petition for review with this Court, addressed to our original jurisdiction, and naming the Department of Corrections as a defendant. Petitioner alleged therein that the Department had improperly failed to credit him for time served from August 14, 1991, through January 26, 2004, the date of sentencing following his guilty plea to thirddegree murder. The Department filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer noting that it properly aggregated Petitioner s robbery and murder sentences for a total 4 See Commonwealth v. Wyatt, (Pa. Super., No. 2050 EDA 99, filed July 16, 2001). 5 Petitioner subsequently filed another petition for relief under the PCRA, as well as a supplemental PCRA petition, with the trial court. The trial court dismissed these petitions without hearing. Petitioner appealed to our Superior Court. By opinion and order dated August 8, 2007, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court s denial of Petitioner s PCRA petitions without hearing, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over any claims regarding Petitioner s robbery charges and ultimate convictions because the same had been rejected during the course of proceedings under Petitioner s first PCRA petition. As to the murder charge, conviction and subsequent sentencing, the Superior Court concluded that Petitioner s claims were meritless and noted that any claims regarding a computation or miscalculation of sentence are not cognizable under the PCRA and must be presented directly to the Department of Corrections or to this Court through an original action. 3 period of confinement of thirty to sixty years and alleging that Petitioner had indeed received credit for all time served.6 By order dated March 29, 2006, we sustained the Department s demurrer and dismissed Petitioner s petition for review, concluding that the evidence of record established that Petitioner received credit for time served since August 14, 1991, and that he was not entitled to double credit.7 In May of 2006, Petitioner filed a second petition for review with this Court raising similar allegations.8 By order dated May 15, 2006, we dismissed said petition as duplicative. On November 26, 2007, Petitioner filed his third and present petition for review with this Court. Petitioner alleged that, based on newly disclosed records and procedural facts, he is entitled to an award of twelve (12) years and five (5) months of credit for time served to reduce his related sentence for the charge of murder in the third degree to a maximum term of seven (7) years and seven (7) months. As to the newly disclosed records supporting his latest petition for review, Petitioner cited to our Superior Court s opinion and order dated August 8, 2007, wherein the Court indicated that the trial court had directed that Petitioner receive credit for all time served. Petitioner asserted that the Secretary, despite being bound to follow the trial court s order, has continually refused to award him such credit. 6 The Department had calculated Petitioner s minimum and maximum sentence dates as of August 14, 1991, thereby leaving him with a minimum date of August 14, 2021, and a maximum date of August 14, 2051. 7 By order dated April 12, 2006, we denied Petitioner s application for reconsideration. 8 Petitioner named the Department of Corrections, Superintendent David DiGuglielmo and the Records Room Supervisor at SCI-Graterford as defendants. 4 In response to this latest petition for review, the Secretary filed the present preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer alleging that Petitioner has previously raised the issue of improper credit with no success and that he should be precluded from raising it again. Additionally, the Secretary alleges that Petitioner has failed to state a clear legal right to the relief requested as he has already received due credit for all time served as of August 14, 1991. The Secretary notes that all three of Petitioner s sentences were directed to run consecutively, for a total of thirty to sixty years, and that appropriate credit has been applied to this aggregate period of confinement. Petitioner filed an answer to the preliminary objections asserting that any prior court orders issued before the newly discovered August 8, 2007, Superior Court opinion must be contrary to that opinion. Petitioner avers that had he been correctly given credit for his time served, his aggregated sentence would be twenty (20) years to forty-seven (47) years, six (6) months, and nineteen (19) days, with an effective date of August 14, 1991, and a minimum release date of August 14, 2011. In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, this Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Stone and Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 616 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). However, this Court need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations or expressions of opinion. Myers v. Ridge, 712 A.2d 791, 794 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 560 Pa. 677, 742 A.2d 173 (1999). The question presented by a demurrer is whether, in the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Jackson v. Garland, 622 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 1993). 5 Furthermore, collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prohibits the relitigation of questions of law or issues of fact that have already been litigated and determined by a final judgment. Duvall v. Department of Corrections, 926 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). We note that Petitioner has now filed three separate petitions for review alleging the same facts and the same legal issues before this Court. In the present petition for review, Petitioner adds the phrase newly discovered records in an attempt to differentiate this third filing from his previous petitions for review. As noted above, the newly discovered records refers to our Superior Court s August 8, 2007, opinion citing the trial court s sentencing order dated January 26, 2004, which directed that Petitioner receive credit for all time served. Nevertheless, Petitioner neglects the fact that neither the Secretary nor the Department of Corrections has ever disputed that Petitioner should receive credit for time served as of August 14, 1991. Essentially, Petitioner is once again challenging the manner in which his sentences were calculated. However, we have previously concluded that the evidence of record in Petitioner s case reveals that the sentences were properly calculated/aggregated and that Petitioner is really seeking what amounts to an impermissible double credit. Petitioner has not and cannot point to any legal authority entitling him to such double credit. Additionally, and more significantly, although Petitioner attempts to create an issue in this third petition for review based on newly discovered records, his factual allegations and his recitation of legal issues in this petition and his prior petitions are indistinguishable. As this Court has previously considered those allegations and legal arguments, and has issued decisions and orders in which it dismissed Petitioner s prior petitions for review based on their identical substantive facts and legal issues, we 6 conclude that the re-litigation of those issues is prohibited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Accordingly, we sustain the Secretary s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer and dismiss Petitioner s petition for review. JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kevin Wyatt, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D. Secretary of Corrections S.C.I. @ Graterford, Respondent : : : : : : : : : No. 558 M.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2008, upon consideration of the preliminary objection filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, said preliminary objection is sustained and the petition for review filed by Kevin Wyatt is hereby dismissed. JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior 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.
