Forbes v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 88 MAP 2007

Citation946 A.2d 103
Decision Date30 April 2008
Docket NumberNo. 88 MAP 2007,88 MAP 2007
PartiesMichael FORBES, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.1

1. This Court offers no comment concerning the Commonwealth Court's determination that all challenges to sentencing aggregation proceed in mandamus as opposed to habeas corpus, see Forbes v. PBPP, 931 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007), since such question has not been pursued by either party in the present appeal. This disposition is limited to the availability of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, implicated by a clear right to relief in the form of the performance of ministerial duties required of the government, and only in the absence of any other adequate and appropriate remedies. See Seeton v. Pa. Game Comm'n, 594 Pa. 563, 937 A.2d 1028, 1033 (2007).

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Taylor v. Commonwealth, Dep't. of Corr.
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 1, 2023
    ...plain terms of the sentencing orders. See Forbes v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 931 A.2d 88, 90-92 & 95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), aff'd, 596 Pa. 492, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. 2008) (denying inmate's application for summary relief, sustaining the Department's preliminary objections and dismissing inmate's mandam......
  • Mitchell v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 21, 2019
    ...(DOC), not the Board, is responsible for calculating sentences in accordance with a sentencing court's orders. Forbes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 931 A.2d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), aff'd, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. 2008). The Board lacks authority to impose additional prison time beyond the time orde......
  • TUCKER v. DIGUGLIELMO, CIVIL ACTION No. 09-5887
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 7, 2011
    ...jurisdiction over Tucker by allowing the federal authorities to pursue the federal charges against him. See Forbes v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 931 A.2d 88, 93 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (holding that although a prisoner generally has the right to serve a sentence continuously, "a continuous sentence ......
  • Choe v. From the Decision of the Phila. Bd. of Revision of Taxes, 1824 C.D. 2019
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 19, 2021
    ...misrepresentation; and (3) the party acted to his or her detriment by justifiably relying on the misrepresentation." Forbes v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. , 931 A.2d 88, 94 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), aff'd , 596 Pa. 492, 946 A.2d 103 (2008), cert. denied , 555 U.S. 1192, 129 S.Ct. 1404, 173 L.Ed.2d 621 ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT