 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gombocz v. Commonwealth3/21/2003
Before this court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) in response to the petition for writ of mandamus filed by William S. Gombocz. The issue in this case is whether the Board violated Gombocz's due process rights by applying an arbitrary and capricious standard in its decision to deny him parole.
Gombocz is currently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, serving a one-year and six-month to ten-year sentence of incarceration for the offenses of aggravated assault and criminal conspiracy. His minimum sentence date was April 10, 1996, and his maximum term expiration date was July 7, 2004. By Notice of Board Decision (PBPP-15) dated October 22, 1996, the Board informed Gombocz he had been refused parole, but stated his case would be reviewed in April of 1997. Thereafter, the Board mailed Gombocz another PBPP-15, dated April 29, 1997, paroling him to a Community Corrections Center for at least six months. On July 2, 1998, Gombocz was arrested by the Board's agents for a technical parole violation of condition #5b, which disallowed the ownership or possession of any firearms or other weapons. By a PBPP-15 dated August 21, 1998, Gombocz was continued on parole. In December of 2000, City of Allentown police officers apprehended Gombocz and charged him with criminal conspiracy to possess a controlled substance (cocaine) and with driving under the influence of alcohol. By a PBPP-15 dated February 15, 2001, the Board recommitted Gombocz to a state correctional institution as a technical parole violator (TPV) to serve three months backtime when he became available. The Board listed as mitigating reasons for the imposition of this backtime: "You were on supervision for 3½ years. You need mental health out-patient treatment. You have custody of a 12 year old son. Charges are likely to be dismissed." Gombocz's parole violation maximum term expiration date is now September 7, 2004.
In October of 2001, the Board, on its own motion, interviewed Gombocz for reparole, which it then refused him. In a PBPP-15 dated October 11, 2001, the Board stated its determination "that the fair administration of justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole." The Board notice also explained:
At your next interview, the Board will review your file and consider:
Whether you have participated in/successfully completed a treatment program for: substance abuse.
Whether you have received/maintained a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections.
Whether you have received/maintained a clear conduct record and completed the Department of Corrections' prescriptive program(s).
You grossly minimize your instant offense as well as your supervision history while on parole. (Emphasis added).
The Board further ordered in its October 2001 decision that Gombocz " e reviewed in or after October, 2002." On December 19, 2001, the Board denied Gombocz's request for administrative relief, informing him that parole decisions are not subject to appeal.
On January 14, 2002, Gombocz, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the Board inexplicably relied on the same reasons for denying him parole in October 2001 that it had previously used in showing him leniency and recommitting him as a TPV for only three months in February 2001. Gombocz also argues that he has completed stress and anger, decision-making, and drug and alcohol treatment programs, as required. Specifically, Gombocz states: "To deny parole based upon the need for
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|