The opinion
*1046 KELLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Petitioner’s claim relating to the denial of his request to participate in the pre-release program fails to state a claim in mandamus. However, because I believe that mandamus could issue to compel the Department to remove its classification of Petitioner as a “dangerous offender” or a “sexually violent predator”, I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion to the contrary.
Mandamus will lie only where the petitioning party demonstrates his clear right to relief, a correspondingly clear duty on the part of the party against whom mandamus is sought, and the want of any other adequate remedy. Campbell v. Department of Corrections, 729 A.2d 682 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), citing Francis v. Corleto, 418 Pa. 417 , 211 A.2d 503 (1965). See also Weaver v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (The only relief that an unsuccessful candidate for parole could obtain through an action in mandamus against the Board was for the proper procedures to be followed and the proper law to be applied by the Board in ruling on the parole application.)
In this case, Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that the Department has improperly designated him as a “dangerous offender” and a “sexually violent predator”. 1 However, only the sentencing court has the authority to make such designations after due consideration of a number of statutory factors. See sections 9714 and 9794 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9714, 9794. Thus, it is patently beyond the authority of the Department to make such designations. If, as it is alleged, the Department made these designations and considered them in ruling on Petitioner’s application for participation in the pre-release program, mandamus could issue to correct these errors. As a result, I would overrule the Respondents’ preliminary objection to this claim.
. As the majority correctly notes, this Court must accept these allegations as true. See, e.g., Stone and Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 266 , 616 A.2d 1060 (1992).