Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the case of William Bennett, Parole No. 6700-R.
Frederick I. Huganir, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.
Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 373]
William Bennett petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole denying him administrative relief from a board recommitment order. The board revoked the petitioner's parole as both a technical and new conviction violator under section 21.1 of the Pennsylvania Board
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 374]
of Parole Act,*fn1 returning the petitioner to prison to serve one year, three months and five days on backtime.
On January 24, 1984, the board had granted the petitioner parole from a seven-month-to-two-year sentence which he had been serving for an indecent assault conviction. Two conditions of the petitioner's parole were that he was to participate in psychological/psychiatric and alcohol therapy, and that he was to refrain from consuming alcohol.
Upon his release on parole, the petitioner participated in Teen Challenge, an in-patient alcohol counseling program. The petitioner did well in that program until Teen Challenge dismissed him on July 1, 1984, for making sexual overtures to two young female children visiting the center. The petitioner returned to his mother's residence in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, but failed to participate in any type of required counseling.
On September 9, 1984, the Jersey Shore Police arrested the petitioner and charged him with two counts of open lewdness and two counts of indecent exposure. After entering a plea of nole contendere to all charges, the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County sentenced the petitioner to two years of probation with the stipulation that he continue participation in the Lycoming County Sex Offender Program, which he had begun upon his incarceration in September, 1984. The technical and new conviction violations ensued.
The issue is whether section 21.1 of the Parole Act permits the board's order recommitting the petitioner for both ...