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.

RICHARD STURTZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/07/83)

decided: January 7, 1983.

RICHARD STURTZ, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT



Original jurisdiction in case of Richard Sturtz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

COUNSEL

Timothy P. Wile, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, with him Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 72]

Petitioner Richard Sturtz, a parole violator reincarcerated pursuant to conviction of an offense committed while on parole, has filed a petition for review of the actions of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in connection with the revocation of his parole and recomputation of his sentences.

The petition for review presents two issues which we have recently considered in other cases:

First, where a parole violator, ultimately convicted for an offense committed while on parole, does

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 73]

    not obtain release on bail pending trial but remains in detention, should the pre-trial detention time, after the lodging of a detainer against him by the Board of Probation and Parole, be counted toward the original sentence backtime or attributed to the sentence for the new offense?

Second, was petitioner's revocation hearing conducted by the board in accordance with the 120-day time limit under 37 Pa. Code ยง 71.4(2)?

We have answered the first question several times recently, pointing out that the pre-trial detention time is counted toward the new sentence, not toward the backtime, when bail is not posted, even though bail-posting may admittedly be unlikely. In Campbell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 454, 409 A.2d 980 (1980), we cite our decisions clarifying Mitchell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 243, 375 A.2d 902 (1977). ...


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.