Cases

OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are cross-applications for summary relief 1 regarding a petition for review filed by Loren Allen (Allen) against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board). Allen, representing himself, seeks relief in mandamus compelling the B

DISSENTING OPINION BY President Judge DAN PELLEGRINI. ■ Section 21.1a(a) authorizes the Board to recommit a parolee who, “during the period of parole ... commits any crime punishable by imprisonment, from which he is convicted or found guilty by a judge or jury or to which he pleads guilty or nolo contendere at any time thereafter....” If the Board recommits a parolee as a convicted parole violator under th

OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON. Petitioners, who are current or former state correctional inmates1 accused or convicted of sex offenses, and who were granted parole, but were denied release to community corrections centers (CCCs), filed suit in our original jurisdiction. Petitioners challenge the policies and practices of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) and the De

OPINION BY Senior Judge FRIEDMAN. Jerome A. Loach (Loach) petitions for review of the January 3, 2012, order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which denied Loach’s administrative appeal from the Board’s decision recommitting him as a convicted parole violator. Loach also filed a motion to strike from the record the notice of charges dated August 26, 2011. We deny the motion to strike an

39 A.3d 530 (2012) Samuel BARGE, Timothy Helsel, Peter Rackley, Joseph Hartdegen, Juan Lopez, Clyde Phillips, and Gregory Moore, Petitioners v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Catherine C. McVey, Chairman, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and John E. Wetzel, Secretary, Respondents. No. 149 M.D. 2011 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Octo

Charles Jackson (hereafter Jackson) petitions the Court for its review of an order entered by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), mailed August 29, 2007, that denied Jackson's administrative appeal of the Board's May 17, 2007 order recommitting Jackson as a convicted parole violator (CPV) because of his summary conviction of public drunkenness resulting in a $50 fine. The Board also set a new maximum parole expiration date. Jackson questions whether the Boar

OPINION PER CURIAM. John C. Koehler (Koehler), pro se, petitions for review from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that recommitted him as a technical and convicted parole violator and recalculated his parole violation maximum date to May 6, 2012. On December 6, 1990, Koehler was sentenced to a term of 9-20 years for robbery and criminal conspiracy. He w

OPINION BY Judge McGINLEY. Henry Meleski (Meleski) petitions for review from a final determination of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that denied Meleski credit1 for his time spent at Gaudenzia First (Gaudenzia).2 Meleski was effectively sentenced on November 9, 2000, to a term of one year three months to three y

886 A.2d 1183 (2005) Richard WEIGLE, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted October 7, 2005. Decided November 18, 2005. *1184 Timothy L. Clawges, Carlisle, for petitioner. Arthur R. Thomas, Asst. Counsel and Victoria S. Freimuth, Chief Counsel, Ha

CONCURRING OPINION BY Judge FRIEDMAN. I respectfully concur. I agree with the majority that the restrictions on the liberty of Jose Enrique Torres (Torres) during the initial forty-five-day “black out” period at the Conewago-Wernersville inpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility (Conewago) were the equivalent of incarceration as contemplated by our supreme court in Cox v. Board of Probation and

OPINION BY Senior Judge McCLOSKEY. Marvin L. Price (Petitioner) petitions for review of a decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which recommitted Petitioner to a state correctional institution to serve as a technical parole violator. We affirm. Petitioner was originally sentenced in Allegheny County to an aggregate term of not less than five years to not more th

DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN. I respectfully dissent. Jerry Jones (Jones) is a parolee who spent thirteen months in custody without posting bail awaiting disposition of new criminal charges and received a sentence of only twelve months. The majority holds that Jones is not entitled to credit on his original sentence for the extra one month of prison time that cannot be applied to his new sentence. I reali

DOYLE, President Judge. Elliott Thompson (Petitioner) petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), dated June 3,1999, denying his request for administrative relief from an order recommitting him as a technical parole violator to serve an additional 12 months of his original sentence. On December 21, 1993, Petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent sentences o

FRIEDMAN, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Because James E. Owens received a sentence of “guilty without further penalty” on his new criminal charges, a sentence that involves no possibility of jail time, I believe that Owens is entitled to credit on his original sentence for the time he spent in custody awaiting disposition of those charges. Thus, unlike the majority, I would reverse the or

744 A.2d 382 (2000) George SHAW, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs December 3, 1999. Decided January 13, 2000. Daniel H. Glammer, Norristown, for petitioner. Arthur R. Thomas, Harrisburg, for respondent. Before PELLEGRINI, J., FRIEDMAN, J., and RODGERS, Senior

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 03, 2014 ANDREW J. BRADEN, III v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 13430II Carol L. McCoy, Chancellor No. M2013-02036-COA-R3-CV - Filed November 4, 2014 This is a pro se appeal from a denial o

714 A.2d 502 (1998) Stanley STEWART, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and Department of Corrections, Respondents. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs April 9, 1998. Decided June 24, 1998. *503 Stanley Stewart, petitioner, for himself. Arthur R. Thomas, Harrisburg, for respondent

McGINLEY, Judge. Richard Jordan (Jordan) petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), dated March 13,1997, denying Jordan’s request for administrative relief and recommitting him to serve fifteen months baektime as a convicted parole violator. On December 3, 1993, Jordan, while on parole, was arrested and charged with manufacturing and possession of controlle

BARRY, Senior Judge. Francis Kester filed a pleading styled “Motion and Notice Seeking the Board to Lift the Detainer Against Petitioner, Until Charges are Ruled on by the Superior Court”. This Court ordered that the pleading be treated as a petition for review in our original jurisdiction challenging the detainer lodged against Kester by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the Board). The Board filed preliminary o

BARBIERI, Senior Judge. Alan L. Dunkelberger (Petitioner) petitions for review of a determination of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying his request for administrative relief. In this case, we are presented with the sole issue of whether the circumstance of a parolee being held in criminal contempt for violation of a protective order issued pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Act1</