# Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 20, 1980 · 488 Pa. 397

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704468

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph GAITO, Jr., Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 20, 1980
- **Citations:** 488 Pa. 397; 412 A.2d 568; 1980 Pa. LEXIS 549
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
- **Cited by:** 409 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704468

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 th…
- 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”
- stating “if a defendant 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704468. Public record. Not legal advice.