Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the case of James Tarrant, dated October 3, 1985.
Scott F. Breidenbach, Assistant Public Defender, Parole Division, 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 Blatt.
[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 370]
James Tarrant (petitioner) petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) which denied his petition for administrative relief.*fn1
On May 2, 1982, the petitioner was paroled from a sentence of five to twelve years on a burglary conviction. While on parole, he was arrested on new criminal charges (new charges). The Board lodged a detainer against him, charging him with parole violations based on the new charges, as well as several technical parole violations which were unrelated to the new charges. On February 7, 1984, the petitioner, who had waived his preliminary and detention hearing, requested that his Violation-Revocation hearing,*fn2 which was scheduled for that day, be continued to "CFN" (continued until further notice), pending the disposition of the new charges.
The petitioner was found guilty on the new charges on October 31, 1984 and the Board received official verification thereof on December 10, 1984.
The Board held the petitioner's Violation-Revocation hearing on March 7, 1985 and, on April 18, 1985, recorded its order recommitting him as a technical and
[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 371]
convicted parole violator for a period of sixty-six months.
Upon the petitioner's request for administrative relief, the Board ordered a re-hearing solely for the purpose of deciding whether or not the March 7, 1985 hearing complied with the applicable 120 day time limits.*fn3
After a hearing, the Board concluded that the March 7, 1985 hearing was timely and affirmed its recommitment order. And, as noted, the Board subsequently upheld the timeliness of the March 7, 1985 hearing and the propriety of its ...