Commonwealth v. Ashe
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | MAXEY, Justice. |
| Citation | 182 A. 229 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH ex rel. LYNCH v. ASHE, Warden. |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1936 |
COMMONWEALTH ex rel. LYNCH
v.
ASHE, Warden.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan. 6, 1936.
Appeal No. 47, March term, 1936, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, No. 2114, October term, 1935; John P. Eagan, Judge.
Petition by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the relation of Thomas Lynch, for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Stanley P. Ashe, Warden of the Western State Penitentiary. From an order dismissing the petition and remanding the relator, the relator appeals.
Order affirmed.
Argued before FRAZER, C. J., and KEPHART, SCIIAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, and BARNES, JJ.
Herman M. Hollander and A. Morris Ginsburg, both of Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Frederick G. Weir, of Pittsburgh, for appellee.
MAXEY, Justice.
On September 14, 1925, Thomas Lynch was sentenced by the court of quarter sessions of Lycoming county upon two separate bills of indictment, each charging him with a separate act of larceny. Each sentence was for a minimum term of eighteen months and a maximum term of three years, the sentences to be served consecutively. The prison authorities entered the prisoner on their records as serving a single sentence, with a minimum of three years and a maximum of six years. On September 14, 1928, after three years' incarceration, the prisoner was paroled, in assumed compliance with the provisions of the Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055, for three years, upon recommendation of the board of inspectors of the penitentiary. Within a year after his release he committed a felony in the state of Iowa. He was sentenced to serve there a term of not less than five years and not more than fifteen years.
On February 22, 1934, he was released from the Iowa Penitentiary and in due course committed to the custody of the warden of the Western State Penitentiary to serve all of his unserved time in that institution, for violation of the conditions of his parole. Lynch has since his return served eighteen months and claims that he is now entitled to a release. The court below denied his claim for a release and held that he must undergo imprisonment for eighteen months more.
It is appellant's proposition that "where a person is sentenced to serve two successive indeterminate sentences in a state penitentiary and serves the minimum part of the first sentence, then is immediately caused [by the prison authorities] to commence serving the minimum part of his second sentence, and is then paroled for a term equal to the balance of the total of both sentences, which parole he violates, he is entitled—after being recommitted as a parole violator—to either his unconditional or conditional freedom after then serving the balance of the second sentence."
We must overrule this proposition as applicable to this case. Its error lies in the assumption that Lynch was actually serving the minimum part of his second sentence after the expiration of eighteen months of his first sentence. He was entitled to apply for a parole from further service of his first sentence within three months of the expiration of the minimum part of that sentence, the parole, if granted, to be effective after that minimum part had been fully served. See sections 7, 8, 9, of the Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055 (61 P.S. §§ 302-304), section 6, as amended by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. ex rel. Stevens v. Myers
...are considered imposed for the maximum term unless parole intervenes. Commonwealth ex rel. Appellant [sic] v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 344, 345, 182 A. 229, 230-231 (1936); Commonwealth ex rel. Salerno v. Banmiller, 189 Pa.Super. 156, 161, 149 A.2d 501, 504 (1959). Since petitioner has not been p......
-
Commonwealth v. Cain
...quoted language of President Judge Sulzberger, as well as the holding of this Court, in Commonwealth v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, at page 344, 182 A. 229, at page 230, wherein we said, speaking 28 A.2d 905 through Mr. Justice Maxey: "The granting of a parole is a matter of grace * * *." And again,......
-
Jamieson v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
...expiration of each sentence in order to commence serving the next consecutive sentence. In Commonwealth ex rel. Lynch v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 182 A. 229 (1936), the Court held that a prisoner was only entitled to apply for parole at the expiration of his initial minimum term. Only if that app......
-
Narcise v. Bd. of Trs., E. State Penitentiary
...to do so to avoid serving the maximum of his first sentence before beginning to serve the second. Com. ex rel. Lynch v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 182 A. 229; Com. ex rel. McGinnis v. Ashe, 330 Pa. 289, 199 A. 185; Com. ex rel. Considine v. Ashe, 134 Pa. Super. 29, 4 A.2d It would be even more unco......
-
Com. ex rel. Stevens v. Myers
...are considered imposed for the maximum term unless parole intervenes. Commonwealth ex rel. Appellant [sic] v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 344, 345, 182 A. 229, 230-231 (1936); Commonwealth ex rel. Salerno v. Banmiller, 189 Pa.Super. 156, 161, 149 A.2d 501, 504 (1959). Since petitioner has not been p......
-
Commonwealth v. Cain
...quoted language of President Judge Sulzberger, as well as the holding of this Court, in Commonwealth v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, at page 344, 182 A. 229, at page 230, wherein we said, speaking 28 A.2d 905 through Mr. Justice Maxey: "The granting of a parole is a matter of grace * * *." And again,......
-
Jamieson v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
...expiration of each sentence in order to commence serving the next consecutive sentence. In Commonwealth ex rel. Lynch v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 182 A. 229 (1936), the Court held that a prisoner was only entitled to apply for parole at the expiration of his initial minimum term. Only if that app......
-
Narcise v. Bd. of Trs., E. State Penitentiary
...to do so to avoid serving the maximum of his first sentence before beginning to serve the second. Com. ex rel. Lynch v. Ashe, 320 Pa. 341, 182 A. 229; Com. ex rel. McGinnis v. Ashe, 330 Pa. 289, 199 A. 185; Com. ex rel. Considine v. Ashe, 134 Pa. Super. 29, 4 A.2d It would be even more unco......