Begin Main Content Area

Relevant Case Law

Statutes 

61 Pa C.S. § 6101 et seq. – Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's (Board) enabling statute
 
61 Pa. C.S. § 7111 et seq. – Interstate Compact for Supervision of Adult Offenders 
 

Regulations 

37 Pa. Code § 61.1 et seq. – The Board’s governing regulations 
 

Case Law

Parole/Reparole Release

• Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) – Due process for parole violators process hearings
• Rogers v. PBPP, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999) – No right to release on parole under PA law
• Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981) – No right to release on parole under federal law
• Franklin v. PBPP, 476 A.2d 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) – No liberty interest in parole until released
• Weyand v. PBPP, 503 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) – No right to review without an application
• Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 355 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2004) –1996 Amendments violated ex post facto
• Cimazewski v. PBPP, 868 A.2d 416 (Pa. 2005) – 1996 Amendments did not violate ex post facto
• Voss v. PBPP, 788 A.2d 1107 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) – Board must provide reasons for parole denial
• Krantz v. PBPP, 698 A.2d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) – No right to reparole prior to Act 122 of 2012 
 

Parole Revocation

• Baldelli v. PBPP, 76 A.3d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) – Revocations based on paper waivers valid
• Fisher v. PBPP, 62 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) – Waiver of hearing is a waiver of all claims
• Goods v. PBPP, 912 A.2d 226 (Pa. 2006) – Claims not raised at hearing may still be raised on appeal
• Hufmen v. PBPP, 58 A.3d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) – Summary offenses do not equal courts of record
• Welshimer v. PBPP, 83 A.3d  277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) – Act 122 of 2012 is not retroactive
• Montroy v. PBPP, No. 98 M.D. 2013, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. Feb. 27, 2014) – Application of Act 122 of 2012 is based on recorded date of recommitment
• Hudak v. PBPP, 757 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) – Parolee must be somewhat at fault for violation
• Chapman v. Commonwealth, 484 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) – The Board resolves conflicts in evidence
• Lawson v. PBPP, 977 A.2d 85 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) – Timeliness of hearings is governed by regulation
• Rivenbark v. Commonwealth, 501 A.2d 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) – PBPP cannot recommit as both a direct and technical parole violator for the same act
• Commonwealth ex rel. Rambeau, Appellant, v. Rundle, 314 A.2d 842 (Pa. 1973) – parolees entitled to counsel at Board hearings.
• Kyte v. PBPP, 680 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) – Exclusionary rule does not apply to Board cases
 

Credit

• Gaito v. PBPP, 412 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1980) – Pre-sentence credit allocation for direct parole violators
• Martin v. PBPP, 840 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2003) – All pre-sentence must apply somewhere
• Cox v. Commonwealth, 493 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1985) – In-house treatment centers may be equal to prison
• Young v. Commonwealth, 409 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1979) – Board may recalculate max date for violations
• Melhorn v. PBPP, 908 A.2d 266 (Pa. 2006) – No Board credit solely to correct sentencing court error
• Hines v. PBPP, 420 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1980) – Parolees may forfeit credit for time on constructive parole
• Commonwealth v. Dorian, 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983) – Direct parole violators must serve their new sentence and their original sentence consecutively