Zazo v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
| Decision Date | 08 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 178,178 |
| Parties | Joseph ZAZO, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. Misc. 3. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Public Defender, Parole Division Norristown, for petitioner.
Robert A. Greevy, Harrisburg, for respondent.
Before ROGERS, CRAIG and MacPHAIL, JJ.
Joseph Zazo (petitioner) seeks review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (board) refusing his request for administrative relief from a board action revoking his parole and recommitting him for thirty-three months as a convicted parole violator.
The petitioner was convicted of burglary and sentenced to a term of six months to four years by the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. While on parole for this conviction, the petitioner was arrested and convicted of burglary in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. On April 29, 1981, the petitioner was afforded a full board revocation hearing at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, at which he was represented by counsel. On May 11, 1981, the board ordered the petitioner recommitted as a convicted parole violator to serve thirty-three months back time for the Montgomery County conviction. The board thereafter denied the petitioner's request for administrative relief.
Our review is limited to determining whether the adjudication of the board is supported by substantial evidence, is in accordance with law and is observant of the petitioner's constitutional rights. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Washington v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 432, 458 A.2d 645 (1983). The petitioner advances three points of alleged error which, he maintains, warrant a remand to the board.
The petitioner first asserts that the board abused a sound discretion by capriciously disregarding substantial mitigating evidence presented at the revocation hearing. At the hearing, the petitioner testified that his criminal activity was a direct result of his addiction to narcotics, that he had never been afforded treatment or therapy for this condition and that he desired that the board place him in a long-term in-patient drug treatment program.
The petitioner says that the board's failure to mention this evidence proves a capricious disregard of it. We disagree. The board has a wide discretion with respect to matters of credibility and the weight to be given evidence. Section 21.1(a) of the Act of August 6, 1941 (Act), P.L. 861, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.21a(a). The board is not required to discuss and specifically evaluate every contention of the parties. The petitioner committed burglary while released on parole. It was not abuse of discretion to revoke his parole despite his confession of drug addiction.
The petitioner next contends that he is entitled to credit on the original sentence for the time he spent in confinement following the lodging of the board's warrant and until his recommitment, although he did not post bail on the new charges. He asserts that because the sentencing judge for his new conviction did not specify that his new sentence was to be served consecutive to his original sentence, it must be deemed to run concurrently, by virtue of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1406(a) which provides:
(a) Whenever more than one sentence is imposed at the same time on a defendant who is incarcerated for another offense such sentences shall be deemed to run concurrently unless the judge states otherwise.
He relies on Commonwealth v. Dorian, --- Pa.Superior Ct. ---, 468 A.2d 1091 (1983), in which the Superior Court concluded that a trial judge may impose a sentence on a parole violator for a crime committed while on parole to run concurrently with the time remaining on the original sentence.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the holding of the Superior Court in Dorian. Commonwealth v. Dorian, --- Pa. ---, 460 A.2d 1121 (1983); see also Rivera v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, --- Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ---, 470 A.2d 1088 (1984). Hence the law remains that a parole violator convicted and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her back time and the new sentence in consecutive order and that the sentencing judge has no authority to order that the back time and the new sentence should run concurrently. Section 21.1(a) of the Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
... ... 1 This Court's scope of review of a Board recommitment decision is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether the order is in accordance with law, and whether any constitutional rights of the parolee have been violated. Zazo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 198, 470 A.2d 1135 (1984); Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704 ... 2 The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 559-560, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976-2977, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) that: ... ...
-
Harper v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
... ... 255] are violated. Estate of McGovern v. State Employees' Retirement Board, --- Pa. ----, 517 A.2d 523 (1986); Zazo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 198, 470 A.2d 1135 (1984) ... Prior to reaching the merits of Harper's appeal, we must first address ourselves to Harper's petition to vacate our prior appointment of counsel and permit him to proceed pro se ... ...
-
O'Hara v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
... ... 364] whether any constitutional rights of the parolee have been violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Zazo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 198, 470 A.2d 1135 (1984). We are also mindful that the Board bears the burden of proof of showing a violation of parole by a preponderance of the evidence. Hossback v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa ... ...
-
Lawson v. Com., Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
... ... § 704, requires this Court to affirm the Board unless necessary findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, an error of law committed, or a constitutional right of the parolee violated. Zazo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 198, 470 A.2d 1135 (1984) ... General parole condition 3(b), 37 Pa.Code § 63.4(3)(ii), requires parolees to maintain contact with the parole supervision staff by reporting an arrest within seventy-two hours ... ...