33 Pa. Commw. 168 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1978
Opinion by
William Tyrone Simmons has sued the Board of Probation and Parole and the Board’s Chairman in mandamus seeking an order that he be dismissed from custody or, in the alternative, that he be given credit for time served following certain Board hearings which he contends were illegally provided or conducted.
The essential facts concerning the plaintiff’s history in court and before the Board are as follows: He was sentenced by a judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on April 5,1971 to a term of six months to five years for the offenses of Burglary of a Motor Vehicle and Larceny. The effective date of this sentence was January 19, 1971, with a minimum date of July 19,1971 and a maximum date of January 19,1976. He was released on parole by the Board on September
The plaintiff complains of the Board’s actions with respect to the January 4, 1974 and January 29, 1974 hearings. He contends (1) that the Board failed to notify him in writing of the charges against him within the required time limits after he was charged with parole violation; and (2) that he was not given preliminary hearings within 10 days of the filing of the detainer on July 26, 1973, all as required by regulations appearing at 37 Pa. Code §§71.2 and 71.3. He says that although a detainer was filed July 26,1973 he received no hearing until January 4,1974, and that he was then notified for the first time of the two violations, the first being his leaving Eagleville without permission on November 4, 1972, and the second his arrest on criminal charges on July 17,1973.
There is no material fact in dispute. We will grant the Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The plaintiff asserts that the Board’s asserted failure to comply with the procedures required by the cited regulations with respect to notice and hearing following the detainer of July 26, 1973 taints all sub
Order
And Now, this 3rd day of January, 1978, the motion for summary judgment of the Board of Probation and Parole is hereby granted, and judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
These requests for relief are those stated in the plaintiff’s brief. His amended complaint requests only an order that he be afforded a “proper hearing as required by the due process clause. .. .”
As held to be required by Commonwealth v. Tinson, 433 Pa. 328, 249 A.2d 549 (1969).