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.

WALTER JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/05/83)

decided: May 5, 1983.

WALTER JACKSON, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the case of Walter Jackson 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 Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 127]

Walter Jackson (petitioner) appeals here an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) under which he was recommitted as a convicted parole violator.

The petitioner was originally sentenced on November 15, 1971 and sent to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. On July 4, 1978, he was released on parole. Subsequently, and while still on parole, the

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 128]

    petitioner was arrested on new criminal charges, including robbery. The Board lodged a detainer and, after hearings, revoked the parole and ordered recommitment when available. The petitioner was sentenced to a term of two to four years by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County and he remained incarcerated in the Bucks County Prison until transferred to Graterford in January of 1980. Effective October 6, 1980, the Board paroled the petitioner relative to the Bucks County offense, but reaffirmed its prior order recommitting him as a convicted parole violator.

The petitioner argues that the Board, pursuant to Section 21.1 of the Act of August 6, 1941 (Act), P.L. 861, added by the Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 1401, as amended, 61 P.S. ยง 331.21a, should have required him to serve the sentence from which he was originally paroled before beginning to serve time on the new offense. Because, as he argues, the Board erred in not following the mandate of the Act, it lost jurisdiction over the petitioner and hence lost its power to recommit him.

Section 21.1 of the Act, in pertinent part, provides:

If a new sentence is imposed upon such parolee, the service of the balance of said term originally imposed shall precede the commencement of the new term imposed in the following cases:

(1) If a person is paroled from any State penal or correctional institution under the control and supervision of the Department of Justice and the new sentence imposed upon him is to be served in ...


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.