stating that “[j]urisdiction over complaints against State agencies or officers administrating the parole system which are not direct or collateral attacks on the conviction or sentence was vested exclusively in the Commonwealth Court”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[j]urisdiction over complaints against State agencies or officers administrating the parole system which are not direct or collateral attacks on the conviction or sentence was vested exclusively in the Commonwealth Court”
- holding that a proceeding in mandamus is available to compel a public official to correct a mistake in applying the law when interpreting commitment papers
- “Jurisdiction over complaints sounding in mandamus against State agencies administering the parole system, where the complaint is not a direct or collateral attack on the -3- J-S21010-18 conviction or sentence, is vested exclusively in the Commonwealth Court.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*163 LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent and adopt the reasoning of the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion as authored by the Honorable Judge Roy Wilkinson, Jr. That case may be found at Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. Lonnie Davis v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 335 , 365 A.2d 702 (1976).
MANDERINO, J., joins this dissenting opinion.