stating “[a] parole violator convicted -3- J-S19024-25 and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her ‘back time’ and the new sentence is to run consecutive (and not concurrent) to the time remaining on the original sentence”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[a] parole violator convicted -3- J-S19024-25 and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her ‘back time’ and the new sentence is to run consecutive (and not concurrent) to the time remaining on the original sentence”
- “The policy behind requiring that a person sentenced to simple imprisonment serve the sentence in a county jail and not a state penitentiary, recognizes that such a person, who is rarely in trouble, should not be subjected to imprisonment with persons guilty of serious misdemeanors or felonies.”
- “A parole violator convicted and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her ‘back time’ and the new sentence is to run consecutive (and not concurrent) to the time remaining on the original sentence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring:
As Judge Tamilia’s opinion makes clear, the appellant is not subjected to an increase in punishment by virtue of the order amending his sentence, which merely changes the place of confinement from the Erie County Jail to the state institution where he is currently serving an extended sentence. Appellant has in no way established his entitlement to any relief, and consequently I join the order of affirmance.