Original jurisdiction in case of Commonwealth ex rel. John T. Bonaparte v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Probation and Parole.
John T. Bonaparte, petitioner, for himself.
Robert A. Greevy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
John T. Bonaparte (Petitioner) has filed a Petition for Review with this Court in which he seeks a hearing before the Board of Probation and Parole (Board) and, in general terms, a reinstatement of his previous parole status. The Board filed an answer to which Petitioner filed a rebuttal, and the Board then moved for judgment on the pleadings. We grant the motion for the reasons expressed hereinbelow.
On July 8, 1971, Petitioner, having served the minimum terms on four sentences for property offenses, was paroled by the Board. Two of the sentences were concurrent, and had effective dates of May 30, 1968 and maximum terms expiring May 30, 1983.
On May 31, 1974, Petitioner was again arrested and charged with criminal offenses. Following his release on bail, his whereabouts became unknown to the Board, which thereupon recorded an action to declare Petitioner delinquent.
On February 25, 1976, Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court at Lexington, Kentucky, on charges of transporting forged securities in interstate commerce and sentenced to five years' imprisonment at the Federal Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. The Board sent to the Penitentiary a warrant dated July 5, 1976, but subsequently asked the warden there to remove it and return it, which he did on July 19, 1976. To date, the Board has not conducted a parole revocation hearing in Petitioner's case.
Petitioner contends that he has a right under the Federal Constitution to an immediate parole revocation hearing and cites Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
In Moody v. Daggett, 97 S. Ct. 274 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a federal parolee in prison for crimes committed while on parole was not constitutionally entitled to an immediate revocation hearing even though in that case a parole violation warrant had been lodged with the institution of confinement as a detainer. In ...