Commonwealth of PA v. Brandon R. Holbrook No. No. CP-38-CR-0002100-2014

Criminal Action-Law-Sentencing Alternatives-Work Release-Eligibility-Authority of Court-Authority of Correctional Institution
Defendant, who has a history of multiple convictions of indecent exposure, most recently was re-sentenced on a violation of probation to five (5) months to one (1) year’ imprisonment with the Court’s re-sentencing Order indicating that the claimant was eligible for the work release program.  Officials at the Lebanon County Correctional Facility rejected Defendant’s request for work release due to the nature of Defendant’s prior record and the fact that the claimant’s prospective employer was located outside of Lebanon County.  Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Work Release on the basis that the Court’s re-sentencing Order made him eligible for the work release program.
1.  Title 42 Pa.C.S. § 9755 authorizes the Court to impose a sentence of partial confinement and to grant a defendant the privilege of leaving the institution during necessary and reasonable hours for work at his employment.
2.  Title 42 Pa.C.S. § 9813(c) provides that county jail officials may detain and may recommit the offender or may preclude the offender from leaving the county jail if the offender violates the conditions set by the jail officials or the Court or if allowing the offender to leave the county jail poses a risk to the safety or the orderly and safe management of the jail.
3.  Due to the risks inherent in the release of any inmate from prison, work release is a privilege that should be enjoyed by an inmate only when both the prison and the Court approve.  If either the Court or the Prison Warden rejects an inmate’s request for work release, that inmate will not be permitted to leave the confines of the prison.
L.C.C.C.P. No. CP-38-CR-0002100-2014, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, October 5, 2017.

District Attorney of Lebanon County for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Frank C. Sluzis, Esquire, for Brandon R. Holbrook

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL NO. CP-38-CR-2100-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
VS
BRANDON R. HOLBROOK

ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion of the DEFENDANT to Compel Work Release and in accordance with the attached Opinion, said Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

BRADFORD H. CHARLES, J.
APPEARANCES:

District Attorney of Lebanon County For Commonwealth
Frank C. Sluzis, Esquire   For Defendant

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., October  5, 2017
Who is authorized to make a final decision regarding an inmate’s request for work release?  Is it the Court, or is it the Warden?  Legal authority exists for both possibilities.  However, we believe the best approach is a collaborative one.  Because work release by definition enables a sentenced prisoner to temporarily leave the physical structure of a prison, and because we believe that innocent citizens could be adversely affected by a work release inmate with nefarious impulses, we conclude that it must be closely evaluated by both the Court and the Prison Warden.  Because of this, we hold today that if either the Court or the Prison Warden rejects an inmate’s request for work release, that inmate should not be permitted to leave the confines of the prison.
I.     FACTS
Brandon R. Holbrook (hereafter DEFENDANT) is forty-one (41) years of age.  He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from Shippensburg University and served with distinction in Afghanistan as a member of the United States Marine Corps.  Until relatively recently, he worked as a truck driver and supported his wife and three children.
Unfortunately, Mr. Holbrook suffers from a compulsion to expose his genitalia in public places.  He was convicted in 1998, 2005, 2013 and 2014 for the crime of indecent exposure.  For each of these convictions, the Court responded with probation and counseling.1
On April 2, 2014, police responded to the report of a male who was touching his penis in the girls’ clothing section of the Wal-Mart store in Palmyra.  Police were summoned.  Video from the Wal-Mart surveillance system was accessed.  Eventually, police determined that the gentleman who exposed himself in Wal-Mart was the DEFENDANT.  He was arrested and charged.
The DEFENDANT entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth that called for probation and house arrest.  On April 22, 2015, we accepted this plea agreement and afforded the DEFENDANT with a sentence of 23 months probation.  The first four of these months was to be spent on house arrest.
Unfortunately, the DEFENDANT exposed himself again in a library located in Lancaster County.  New charges were proffered against him.  Because the DEFENDANT wanted time to fight his charges in Lancaster, we continued his Probation Violation by an Order dated April 19, 2017.  On July 26, 2017, the DEFENDANT acknowledged his violation and we re-incarcerated him for a period of 5 months to 1 year.  At the time of this sentence, we made the DEFENDANT “eligible” for the work release program.
The DEFENDANT submitted an application to the Lebanon County Prison for the work release program.  He provided proof that he would be able to return to work at Espenshade Farms as a truck loader.  His scheduled hours of employment would be 12 noon to 10pm, Sunday through Thursday.  The DEFENDANT submitted a request for this employment to the Lebanon County Prison.  Because of the nature of the DEFENDANT’s record and charges, and because Espenshade Farms is not located in Lebanon County, prison officials rejected the DEFENDANT for the work release program.
On September 1, 2017, the DEFENDANT filed a Motion to Compel Work Release.  We scheduled a hearing on this Motion for September 27, 2017.  At that hearing, Warden Robert Karnes testified.  The DEFENDANT’s attorney presented argument and legal precedent outlining why his client should be granted work release.  The District Attorney’s Office sided with the Warden.  We indicated to both sides that we would review everything presented and would render an Opinion in writing.  We are doing so today.
II     DISCUSSION
Several Pennsylvania statutes govern the work release program.  §9755 of the Sentencing Code authorizes a Court to impose a sentence of “partial confinement”.  This statute permits a Court to “grant the defendant the privilege of leaving the institution during necessary and reasonable hours for…to work at his employment…”. 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9755(c).  The Judiciary Code also contains a specific statute that addresses work release.  §9813 reaffirms the authority of the Court to make an offender “eligible to leave the jail” for work release.  This statute creates a process by which crime victims and the District Attorney’s Office can be notified to any final decision on work release.  The statute also contains this provision:
“The county jail officials may detain and recommit the offender or preclude the offender from leaving the county jail if the offender violates the conditions set by the jail officials or the Court, or if allowing the offender to leave the county jail poses a risk to community safety or the orderly and safe management of the jail.”  42 Pa. C.S.A. §9813(c) 2
Work release programs accomplish many public policy goals.  Work release promotes the concepts of employment and hard work, which are valuable rehabilitative tools.  Work release enables an inmate to earn money to support his/her children, which mitigates the harm caused by incarceration of a parent.  Work release disciplines an inmate to adhere to a work schedule, which is something many inmates seem unable to do while living in the community.  Work release also helps the taxpayers, as work release inmates contribute monetarily toward the cost of their own incarceration.
As laudable as the above public policy goals are, we must acknowledge that work release is not for every inmate.  By definition, inmates are incarcerated for a reason.  They have broken criminal laws designed to protect society.  Some of these inmates have broken multiple laws at multiple times.  Some would like nothing more than to violate even more laws in the future.  Society must be protected from those who would do it harm.  There are certainly inmates who should not be released into the midst of society via a program such as work release.
Discerning the difference between inmates who are a good risk for a program like work release and those who are not is not always easy.  Whenever a difficult decision is faced, it is almost always preferable to have checks and balances to protect against a mistake.  In the case of work release, a template exists that can minimize the possibility of a mistake.  That template requires dual approval as a predicate to placement on the work release program.
Prior to sentencing, judges receive a Pre-Sentence Investigation report outlining the defendant’s employment, family and drug/alcohol abuse history.  In every case, we receive an Affidavit of Probable Cause that summarizes the criminal conduct of the defendant.  In many cases, we also receive letters from friends and family that describe a defendant’s character.  When the day of sentencing occurs, we confront defendants face-to-face and we hear recommendations from victims and prosecutors.  From all of the above, we gain insight as to whether the defendant would be a “good risk” for the work release program.
When an inmate arrives at the Lebanon County Correctional Facility, he/she undergoes an intake process that includes an interview with staff.  While the inmate is incarcerated, he/she is observed by Correctional Officers and staff.  When an inmate desires work release, information is presented to the prison with respect to how and where the defendant would be employed.  From this process, the prison staff also gain insight with respect to whether the defendant should or should not be afforded the opportunity for work release.
In some respects, the information possessed by the Court and the prison overlaps.  In other respects, it does not.  Without question, judges possess information that prison officials do not possess, and vice versa.
Because of the risks inherent in the release of any inmate from prison, we conclude that work release is a privilege that should be enjoyed by an inmate ONLY when both the prison and the Court approve.  By requiring the dual approval of both the Court and the prison, we ensure that if a “red flag” is known only to the Court or to the prison, that “red flag” will be duly noted and considered when assessing a defendant’s suitability for work release.
In this case, the Court declared the DEFENDANT eligible for work release.  When the DEFENDANT applied for the work release program, the prison determined that he was not an appropriate candidate.  Under the dual approval process that we have adopted, approval by only one of the two evaluative entities is not enough.  Accordingly, the DEFENDANT’s Request for Placement on Work Release should be denied.  An Order to accomplish this result will be entered today’s date.

1 The DEFENDANT’s crimes occurred both in Lebanon County and Dauphin County.  The responses of both counties to the DEFENDANT’s conduct were similar.

2 The DEFENDANT cites several other regulations that are found in Title 37 of the Pa. Code.  He indicates that the Lebanon County Prison policy does not comply in all respects with §94.3 through §94.6 of Title 37.  However, the DEFENDANT overlooks that these sections are found in sub-part B of Title 37, which relates to the “Department of Corrections”.  Moreover, simply reviewing §94.3 through §94.6 clearly reveals that those sections are intended to address inmates in a State Correctional Facility.  For example, §94.3 refers to the “Department of Corrections Inmate Handbook”, §94.6 refers to the “Corrections Classification Program Manager” and the “Deputy Superintendent” who are individuals employed by the State Bureau of Corrections and not by county prisons.  We reject the DEFENDANT’s claim that all of the proposed pre-release program requirements set forth in §94.2 through §94.6 of Title 37 apply in this case.