Opinion

Hines v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

  • 491 Pa. 142
  • 420 A.2d 381
  • 1980 Pa. LEXIS 800
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Sep 22, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Roberts
On the bench
Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
Cited by
50 cases

holding that parolee not entitled to credit for time spent serving sentence while on constructive parole because he was “at liberty on parole,” which is gauged by the time spent not serving the original sentence, not whether the offender is, in fact “at liberty”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that parolee not entitled to credit for time spent serving sentence while on constructive parole because he was “at liberty on parole,” which is gauged by the time spent not serving the original sentence, not whether the offender is, in fact “at liberty”
  • recommitment proper even though, hearing on technical violations was untimely when convicted parole violations were sufficient to revoke parole

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ROBERTS, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent. On cross motions for summary judgment the Commonwealth Court sitting en banc unanimously found on an adequate record that “the petitioner would have been eligible for release on bail but for the Board’s detainer.” Thus, there is no need to remand for further findings. Indeed, neither party has requested such a remand. I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s order and grant appellant credit against his original sentence for the time spent in custody because of the Board’s detainer.

O’BRIEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

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.