Poulson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
20 A.3d 1178
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Poulson, life-sentenced murderer, sought parole in 2010; SB 313 (1965) proposed law would have allowed 15-year parole eligibility but was never enacted.
- Act XXXX-XXXX (Dec. 27, 1965) left life-parole prohibition intact; SB 313 never became law.
- Act 2009-33 repealed former parole laws and reenacted provisions; life inmates remain non‑parolable under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.
- 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137 (as amended) continues prohibition on parole for inmates serving life imprisonment.
- Commonwealth Court denied mandamus relief; appellate court affirmed the denial.
- The central issue is whether a non-enacted 1965 bill and a 2009 act change the parole eligibility of life inmates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 313 became law via enrolled bill doctrine. | Poulson argues SB 313 is valid law. | Board argues SB 313 was never enacted. | SB 313 never became law; enrolled bill doctrine not applicable. |
| Whether Act 2009-33 repealed the life‑parole prohibition. | Poulson contends life inmates became parole-eligible after 2009. | Board maintains prohibition remained in effect. | Prohibition remained; Act 2009-33 did not create parole eligibility for life inmates. |
| Whether Poulson is entitled to mandamus relief to compel parole. | Poulson seeks mandamus to order parole. | Board contends no legal entitlement to mandamus relief. | Mandamus relief affirmatively denied; no right to parole under current law. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Comm., 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (2003), 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (enrolled bill doctrine requires due form certification for validity)
- Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. 401 (1877), 85 Pa. 401 (Pa. 1877) (initial strict Enrolled Bill Doctrine; later moderated)
- Pfender v. State, 280 Pa. Super. 417, 421 A.2d 791 (1980), 421 A.2d 791 (Pa. Super. 1980) (distinguishes context; not controlling here)
- Rode v. Phelps, 80 Mich. 598, 45 N.W. 493 (1890), 45 N.W. 493 (Mich. 1890) (foreign jurisdiction cited for Enrolled Bill notion)
- Relosky v. Sacco, 514 Pa. 339, 523 A.2d 1112 (1987), 523 A.2d 1112 (Pa. 1987) (mandamus standards applied)
- Stilp v. Com., Gen. Assembly, 601 Pa. 429, 974 A.2d 491 (2009), 974 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2009) (review of demurrer standard; de novo review)