Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in case of Isiah Robinson, No. S-6675, dated March 11, 1981.
Daniel McGee, Public Defender, for petitioner.
Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him Robert A. Greevy, 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. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 269]
Isiah Robinson appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (board) recommitting him for twenty-one months as both a technical and convicted parole violator.
On December 15, 1977, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Robinson to a term of six months to five years. The board paroled Robinson on September 8, 1978, after he had served approximately nine months in the Philadelphia County Prison.
Robinson's parole officer declared him delinquent, effective February 22, 1979, because Robinson had stopped reporting to him. Robinson also had left his approved residence and had travelled without permission, thereby further violating the terms of his parole. On November 6, 1980, while still on parole, Robinson pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, and the Delaware County court sentenced him to a term of three-to-eight years. Robinson is now serving that sentence in a state correctional institution.
The board, after a hearing, ordered Robinson recommitted, when available, for twelve months as a technical parole violator and for nine months as a convicted parole violator.*fn1 Thus, the board's order provides that the backtime shall follow the new sentence.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 270]
Robinson here argues that the board thereby incorrectly established the date upon which he should begin serving the backtime on his original sentence and that the twenty-one month period was excessive under the circumstances.
Robinson first contends that he should serve the backtime on his original sentence before he begins to serve his new sentence. He relies upon § 21.1 of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, 61 P.S. 331.21a, which provides in relevant part:
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 ...