From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. ex Rel. Jones v. Bd. of Pr. Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1971
3 Pa. Commw. 594 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)

Opinion

Argued November 9, 1971

December 14, 1971.

Mandamus — Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole — Probation and Parole Law, Act 1941, August 6, P. L. 861 — Convicted parole violator — Double jeopardy — Constitutional rights.

(The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a per curiam opinion, decided this case on the basis of Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct, 633 (1971), which held):

1. The Probation and Parole Law, Act 1941, August 6, P. L. 861, authorizes the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole to recommit a convicted parole violator for the balance of the original sentence with no credit for time spent on parole not in custody, if the parolee commits a crime while on parole.

2. Recommitment of a convicted parole violator to serve the balance of his original sentence is not an imposition of a new sentence or a second punishment, does not constitute double jeopardy and is not an infringement of personal liberties and civil rights protected by the Constitution.

Argued November 9, 1971, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., MENCER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.

Original jurisdiction, No. 623 C.D. 1971. Complaint in mandamus filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. Raymond Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Motion for judgment on the pleading. Held: Motion granted. Complaint dismissed.

No appearance for plaintiff.

Salvatore J. Cucinotta, Deputy Attorney General, with him J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for defendant.


Petitioner here raises the question of whether the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole has the power to recommit a parolee who has breached the conditions of his parole by the commission of a crime of which he is subsequently found guilty without giving him credit for the time spent on parole and, if it has the statutory power, is such a recommitment without credit for time spent on parole violative of the provisions of the United States Constitution.

These legal issues were discussed and resolved by this Court in Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 3 Pa. Commw. 633 (1971).

The conclusion is against the position of petitioner.

We therefore make the following

ORDER

The Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby granted and the plaintiff's complaint in mandamus is dismissed.


Summaries of

Com. ex Rel. Jones v. Bd. of Pr. Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1971
3 Pa. Commw. 594 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)
Case details for

Com. ex Rel. Jones v. Bd. of Pr. Parole

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Jones v. Board of Probation and Parole

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 14, 1971

Citations

3 Pa. Commw. 594 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1971)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth ex rel. Miles v. Cuyler

Turning first to the power of the Board to extend by the amount of time spent on parole the original maximum…