Original jurisdiction in case of William Doll v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
William Doll, 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., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.
[ 32 Pa. Commw. Page 340]
Petitioner pro se, William Doll, was sentenced on September 26, 1974, to a term of three months to two
[ 32 Pa. Commw. Page 341]
years.*fn1 On August 6, 1975, he was released on parole. He was subsequently arrested on May 4, 1976, and a warrant charging technical parole violations was filed by respondent, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), that same day. A preliminary-detention hearing resulted in a Board order dated June 10, 1976, to detain petitioner pending disposition of the outstanding criminal charges and to return him, when available, as a technical parole violator. Additional charges were lodged against petitioner on May 28, 1976, following the aforesaid hearing but prior to the Board's order. A second hearing resulted in an order dated July 16, 1976, to reaffirm the June 10, 1976 order but to include therein the May 28, 1976 charges.
On August 19, 1976, when petitioner's original maximum sentence expired, the Board lifted its warrant and petitioner was released on bail.
On October 26, 1976, petitioner was convicted of the May 28, 1976 charges, sentenced to a term of twelve months and immediately released. A Board warrant to commit and detain petitioner was filed on November 12, 1976.
On November 29, 1976, petitioner was convicted of the May 4, 1976 charges. A parole revocation hearing on March 3, 1977, resulted in petitioner's recommitment as a convicted parole violator with back-time owed of one year and thirteen days. Petitioner is currently serving a two and one-half to ten years sentence on the November 29, 1976 conviction with a parole detainer pending. These are the facts as disclosed by the pleadings consisting of the petition for review in the nature of mandamus, respondent's answer thereto containing new matter and petitioner's
[ 32 Pa. Commw. Page 342]
reply to new matter, within the context of respondent's ...