Jackson v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
| Decision Date | 18 January 1990 |
| Parties | William JACKSON, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
John C. Armstrong, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, PALLADINO, J. (P.) and SMITH, J.
William Jackson (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) denying his request for administrative relief. We affirm.
Petitioner was originally paroled by the Board on July 31, 1986, from a two to five year sentence imposed as a result of a conviction for robbery. He was recommitted as a technical parole violator on April 10, 1987, and ordered to serve four months of backtime. On August 27, 1987, Petitioner was reparoled to the in-patient drug and alcohol treatment program at Eagleville Hospital. Successful completion of the program was a special condition of parole imposed by the Board. On October 1, 1987, having successfully completed the program at Eagleville Hospital, Petitioner was released to the street.
On April 19, 1988, Petitioner was convicted of burglary, criminal conspiracy, criminal trespass, and theft. The Board subsequently entered an order recommitting Petitioner as a convicted parole violator to serve eighteen months of backtime. The Board also set Petitioner's tentative release date and maximum term expiration date. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal seeking to have the time which he spent in Eagleville Hospital credited to his maximum expiration date. After a hearing, the Board found that Petitioner was not entitled to credit against his maximum sentence for the time he spent in the Eagleville program.
On appeal to this court, Petitioner argues that the Board abused its discretion by denying Petitioner credit against his maximum sentence for time spent at the in-patient treatment program at Eagleville Hospital.
Section 21.1(a) of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.21a(a), provides that a parolee who is recommitted as a convicted parole violator "shall be reentered to serve the remainder of the term which said parolee would have been compelled to serve had he not been paroled, and he shall be given no credit for the time spent at liberty on parole." (Emphasis added.) "At liberty on parole" has never been conclusively defined. Although the Board is granted broad discretion in imposing special conditions of parole pursuant to 37 Pa.Code § 63.5, some programs that the Board may require a parolee to participate in while on parole, may be so restrictive as to require the granting of credit for the time spent in them. Cox...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medina v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
...clinic could stop him if he left, and parolee would be treated as an absconder rather than an escapee); Jackson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 527, 568 A.2d 1004 (1990) (parolee not entitled to credit for period in which he resided at facility where doors were not locked, faci......
-
Harden v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation
...facility is not entitled to sentence credit. This Court's first post-Cox decision was Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 527, 568 A.2d 1004, 1006 (1990). At the facility in question, Eagleville Hospital, the parolee was free to leave without physical restr......
-
Torres v. PA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
... 861 A.2d 394 Jose Enrique TORRES, Petitioner ... PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent ... Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ... In Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 527, 568 A.2d 1004 (1990), a ... ...
-
Com. v. Davis
...like Keenan House is not deemed to be in official detention, but rather at liberty on parole. Jackson[ v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 527, 568 A.2d 1004 (1990) ]. Therefore, a parolee cannot be charged with escape for leaving Keenan House. As such, parolees, who......