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.

JEFFERSON JONES v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/11/87)

decided: February 11, 1987.

JEFFERSON JONES, 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 the case of Jefferson Jones, dated February 27, 1986.

COUNSEL

Scott F. Breidenbach, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

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

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 603]

Jefferson Jones (petitioner) seeks review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 604]

(Board) which denied administrative relief from a Board decision imposing a nine-month recommitment as a technical parole violator.

Petitioner was paroled on June 19, 1985, after having served a portion of the two and one-half to ten-year prison term imposed on him for the offense of murder, third degree. On September 18, 1985, petitioner was arrested and charged with Technical Parole Violations No. 2*fn1 (Change of Residence without Permission), No. 3A*fn2 (Failure to Report as Instructed) and No. 5A*fn3 (Failure to Refrain from use of Narcotic Drug).

On January 13, 1986, after a hearing at which petitioner was represented by counsel, petitioner was recommitted as a technical parole violator for nine months for all of the above-named violations. On February 27, 1986, the Board denied petitioner's request for administrative relief and this appeal timely followed.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the Board erred in admitting hearsay evidence of a drug analysis over objection and that the Board's finding of a violation of condition 5A is unsupported by substantial evidence.

In reviewing a parole recommitment by the Board, we are limited to determining whether the Board's order is supported by substantial evidence, is in accordance with the law, and whether any constitutional rights of the parolee have been violated. O'Hara v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 87 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 356, 487 A.2d 90 (1985).

The Board's decision that petitioner was in violation of parole condition 5A was based on a urinalysis report from Healtheast Laboratories, which was submitted by Vince ...


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.