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.

JAMES WOLFE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/15/86)

decided: January 15, 1986.

JAMES WOLFE, 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 case of James Wolfe, Parole No. 9364J, dated May 29, 1985.

COUNSEL

Frederick I. Huganir, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 201]

James Wolfe (Petitioner) appeals here from a decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) which denied him administrative relief. We affirm.

On September 24, 1984, Petitioner, on parole, was found guilty of Theft by unlawful taking or disposition*fn1 and Receiving Stolen Property.*fn2 Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to a term of not less than eighteen months nor more than three years and was

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 202]

    committed to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (SCI-Camp Hill).

A full Board revocation hearing was held on March 13, 1985, where Petitioner was represented by the Assistant Public Defender of Cumberland County. By a decision dated March 28, 1985,*fn3 the Board recommitted Petitioner as a convicted parole violator to serve a total of fifteen months on backtime "for multiple offenses". The Board's decision noted that the "presumptive range for offense of theft is six to twelve months", and did not account for the three additional months of backtime imposed. Petitioner's parole violation maximum date was determined to be November 5, 1987.

Petitioner, through counsel, requested administrative relief from the Board's order, contending that (1) the Board erred in finding Petitioner a multiple offender in that the offense of theft by unlawful taking merged into the offense of receiving stolen property, so that in essence there was but one offense; (2) the board erred in computing the parole violation maximum date; and (3) the Board erred in imposing a recommitment of more than six to twelve months.

On May 17, 1985, the Board modified its prior order by changing the maximum date to November 5, 1986. By letter dated May 29, 1985, the Board addressed Petitioner's request for administrative relief:

The Board, in ordering your client to serve 15 months on backtime, noted that the predominant presumptive range for the offense of theft is 6 to 12 months and listed the following aggravating reason for going beyond the range: 'Pattern of parole failure.' The ...


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.