holding that if a parolee “is being held in custody solely because of a detainer lodged by the Board and has otherwise met the requirements for bail on the new criminal charges, the time which he spent in custody shall be credited against his original sentence.” However, if the parolee “remains incarcerated prior to trial because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that if a parolee “is being held in custody solely because of a detainer lodged by the Board and has otherwise met the requirements for bail on the new criminal charges, the time which he spent in custody shall be credited against his original sentence.” However, if the parolee “remains incarcerated prior to trial because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence.”
- holding that if parolee is arrested on new criminal charges, posts bail and is detained solely on Board’s warrant until disposition of new criminal charges, he is entitled to backtime credit for time served under Board’s warrant
- holding that the Board’s denial of credit for the time a CPV spent at liberty on parole “is neither a usurpation of the judicial function of sentencing nor a denial of the procedural safeguards to which persons are entitled”
- holding that if a parolee has met bail on the new charges, but remains in custody solely on the Board’s detainer, then the time the parolee spends in custody “shall be credited against [the] original sentence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Justice,
concurring.
I join the Opinion of the Court for the reasons stated in Young v. Commonwealth Board of Probation and Parole, 487 Pa. 428 , 409 A.2d 843 (1979), in which this Court sustained the constitutionality of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861 § 21.2, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.21a.