Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ERIC RYLES v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/21/79)

decided: March 21, 1979.

ERIC RYLES, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT



Original jurisdiction in case of Eric Ryles v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

COUNSEL

Eric Ryles, petitioner, for himself.

Robert A. Greevy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Blatt, DiSalle, Craig and MacPhail. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 338]

In this case we have treated petitioner's "Motion to Have Parole Reinstated" as a petition for review addressed to this Court's original jurisdiction. In particular, petitioner is here challenging the action of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) detaining him pending the disposition of new criminal charges.

The material facts in this case are undisputed. On June 4, 1978, while on release under parole supervision petitioner was arrested by Philadelphia authorities on a variety of charges. Two days later a parole violation warrant was filed at the Philadelphia Detention Center where petitioner was being held. On June 15, 1978, petitioner received a criminal preliminary hearing at which a prima facie case against petitioner was established. The Board's next action, as recorded on July 13, 1978, was to order petitioner detained pending disposition of the pending criminal charges. It is to this final action of the Board and the procedures utilized in its pursuit that petitioner takes exception.

Petitioner's initial challenge alleges a denial of his right to bail on the new charges by virtue of the Board's detainer. We have considered this precise question on a number of occasions, representative of which is Woodall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 642, 394 A.2d 1061 (1978), making further discussion of this question unnecessary.

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 339]

Petitioner next asserts that the Board erroneously acted without benefit of a detention hearing. The regulation governing Board procedure in this situation, which can be found at 7 Pa. B. 489, is clear and unambiguous:

ยง 71.3. Arrest for a new criminal offense.

The following procedures shall apply in those cases in which the only violation charged is the arrest for a new criminal offense:

(1) A parolee may be arrested and detained on a Board warrant pending disposition of criminal charges upon the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.