Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the case of William James, No. 1588-H.
John C. Armstrong, 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 Palladino.
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 269]
William James (Petitioner) appeals from a decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) which denied him administrative relief from a Board order recommitting him to serve in consecutive order the remaining terms from two prior sentences. We affirm.
On September 7, 1973, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a one and one-half to seven year term for aggravated robbery. On March 7, 1975, he was released on parole. While on parole, Petitioner committed another robbery offense and received a two-to-five year sentence. Based on this conviction, the Board recommitted Petitioner on July 16, 1976 as a convicted parole violator. The Board ordered that Petitioner's recommitment time must be served before commencement of the new sentence.
On January 18, 1978, Petitioner was placed on constructive parole from his original one and one-half to seven year sentence and began serving his new sentence. Thereafter, on May 18, 1979, Petitioner was paroled
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 270]
from his new sentence and released at liberty to an approved parole plan.
On November 23, 1983, Petitioner was arrested, and on March 23, 1984, he was convicted of robbery and conspiracy. A parole revocation hearing was held on July 26, 1984, and the Board subsequently ordered Petitioner recommitted for the remaining terms of each of his previous robbery convictions. The Board ordered that the terms be served consecutively. Following a denial of administrative relief, Petitioner appealed to this court.
Petitioner contends (1) that his parole revocation hearing was untimely; and (2) that the Board erred as a matter of law in ordering that he serve his remaining terms on the robbery convictions consecutively.
Our scope of review is limited to whether the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board has committed an error of law, or whether Petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated. Seyler v. Pennsylvania Board of ...