Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in case of In Re: Bill Bradshaw, No. F-8996, dated April 30, 1981.
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 Doyle.
This is an appeal by Billy Bradshaw (Petitioner) from a denial, by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), of a request to be interviewed for parole consideration. We affirm the action of the Board.
While on parole from a state correctional institution on a sentence of one to three years, Petitioner was arrested and convicted on new criminal charges for which he received a new sentence of six months to two years to be served in a state correctional institution. Petitioner received credit of one year, one month and
twenty-eight days on the new sentence for time incarcerated between his arrest and conviction on the new charges. Following this sentencing on the new conviction, the Board held a violation and revocation hearing and, by decision rendered March 24, 1981, ordered Petitioner recommitted as a technical parole violator to serve twelve months backtime and as a convicted parole violator to serve six months backtime for a total of eighteen months. On April 20, 1981, Petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Relief under 37 Pa. Code § 71.5(h) requesting to be interviewed for parole on the new sentence. On April 30, 1981, the Board denied the request.
Petitioner argues that because of the thirteen month, twenty-eight day credit applied against the new sentence, he has served the minimum term under that sentence and is eligible to be interviewed for parole. The Board reasoned that since Petitioner is currently serving the backtime, with the new sentence listed as a detainer, he is not eligible to be interviewed for parole consideration until the backtime is served and he begins serving the new sentence.
There is no question that once Petitioner has served the backtime ordered for violation of his parole, he will be immediately eligible for parole on the second sentence because of the sufficient pretrial custody credit that will be applied. Our research discloses no statutory or judicial authority, however, which would require the Board to grant the prospective consideration for parole Petitioner here has requested.
The legislature has granted the Board broad discretion in parole matters. Commonwealth v. Vladyka, 425 Pa. 603, 229 A.2d 920 (1967); Barlip v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 458, 405 A.2d 1338 (1979). We ...