Opinion

Sturtz v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

  • 71 Pa. Commw. 71
  • 453 A.2d 1093
  • 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1193
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 7, 1983
Status
Published
On the bench
Craig, MacPhail, Rogers
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.1%

The opinion

Per Curiam Opinion,

Petitioner Richard Sturtz, a parole violator reincarcerated pursuant to conviction of an offense committed while on parole, has filed a petition for review of the actions of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in connection with the revocation of his parole and recomputation of his sentences.

The petition for review presents two issues which we have recently considered in other cases:

First, where a parole violator, ultimately convicted for an offense committed while on parole, does *73 not obtain release on bail pending trial but remains in detention, should the pre-trial detention time, after the lodging of a detainer against him by the Board of Probation and Parole, be counted toward the original sentence backtime or attributed to the sentence for the new offense ?

Second, was petitioner’s revocation hearing conducted by the board in accordance with the 120-day time limit under 37 Pa. Code §71.4 (2) ?

We have answered the first question several times recently, pointing out that the pre-trial detention time is counted toward the new sentence, not toward the backtime, when bail is not posted, even though bail-posting may admittedly be unlikely. In Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 454 , 409 A.2d 980 (1980), we cite our decisions clarifying Mitchell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 243 , 375 A.2d 902 (1977). Counsel should note that a full understanding of this line of cases involves consideration of cases after the 1977 Mitchell case.

With respect to the second question, we note that the cited regulation requires that a revocation hearing be held within 120 days from the date the board has received official verification of the conviction, except that where the parolee is confined outside the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction, the revocation hearing is to be held within 120 days of verification of the return of the parolee to a state correction facility. Here, although the April 21, 1982 revocation hearing was held more than 120 days after the convictions in November of 1981, the parolee was not returned to state custody until February 9,1982, less than ninety days before the revocation hearing, which was therefore timely. Brown v. *74 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 70 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 597 , A.2d (1982).

The board will be affirmed.

Per. Curiam:

Order

Now, January 7, 1983, the actions of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, as herein appealed, are affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.