 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edmond v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole12/15/2005
ty rejected the language in Gregory that appeared to conflict with the issue resolved in Houser, although the dissent advocated the holding in Gregory. In Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 704 A.2d 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), this Court followed Houser and Anderson and held that the time the parolee spent in good standing prior to his recommitment for the technical violations was not shielded from forfeiture upon his recommitment as a CPV.
More recently in Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 854 A.2d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 693, 864 A.2d 530 (2004), the Court declined to overrule Houser, stating that Gregory was expressly discredited by the majority and that the legal viewpoint of Houser remains good law. The Court reaffirmed that " he clear intent of [Section 21.1(a)] is to discourage the commission of new crimes while on either parole or reparole by imposing a costly sanction upon offenders." Id. at 998.
Edmond acknowledges the Dorsey Court's rejection of Gregory and the Houser dissent, but he urges the Court to revisit the issue and to hold that the Board may not forfeit the street time he served on the prior reparole. He characterizes the Court's holdings in Morris, Andrews, Caldwell and Palmer as mere dicta and criticizes as faulty the "Houser's majority's reliance on Anderson's attempt to divine the legislative intent behind 61 P.S. §331.21a(a)." Edmond's Brief at p. 22. The Court noted in Dorsey that " ur case law of more than two decades holds that such street time [served on parole prior to recommitment as a TPV] is subject to forfeiture," Id., 854 A.2d at 997. Because Edmond has failed to present any compelling reason in this case to overrule longstanding precedent that admittedly supports the Board's position, the Court must affirm the Board's order denying administrative relief.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2005, the Court affirms the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the above-captioned matter.
DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|