Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in case of John Corley, Jr., Parole Number 5905-P, dated September 8, 1983.
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 Craig, Palladino and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 530]
John Corley, Jr. appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole denying his petition for administrative relief as to a board order which recommitted Corley for eleven months as a convicted parole violator.
Corley raises three questions of law concerning only the most recent board order affecting his status, making it unnecessary to set forth a detailed factual account of his criminal history which includes at least three arrests, five convictions and four parole revocation hearings. We must determine:*fn1 (1) whether a
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 531]
board recommitment order must include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by section 507 of the Administrative Agency Law;*fn2 (2) whether the board must mention the parolee's mitigating evidence in a recommitment order which does not exceed presumptive ranges; and (3) whether a recommitment of eleven months based on convictions for simple assault and disorderly conduct, which have presumptive ranges of nine to fifteen months and one to six months, respectively, is excessive.
Corley's first contention, that the failure of the board's order to comply with the specificity requirements of section 507 of the Administrative Agency Law warrants a remand, is without merit. That section applies only to "agency adjudications,"*fn3 and an order based on a proceeding involving parole is specifically excluded from the definition of "adjudication" under section 101*fn4 of the Administrative Agency Law. Further, the recommitment order,*fn5 although brief, does include the following elements which we
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 532]
recommended for a logical format in Lewis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 335, 337 n.2, 459 A.2d 1339, 1340 n.2 (1983): The specific parole violation and nature of the offense, the applicable presumptive range and the recommitment time actually imposed.
Lewis also recommends that a board decision include "any mitigating or aggravating circumstances considered by the board for increasing or decreasing recommitment time." Id. Corley argues that the board's failure to include in its order the mitigating evidence he presented at the revocation hearing illustrates the board's capricious disregard of that evidence, which requires reversal. However, we agree with the board that mitigating or aggravating evidence need only be set forth in the order where the recommitment time actually imposed falls short of or exceeds the presumptive range. In Lewis, the board reduced the parolee's recommitment time from one to six months (the presumptive ...