McMahon v. COM., PA. BD. OF PR. & PAROLE

470 A.2d 1337, 504 Pa. 240, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 771

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 29, 1983
• Docket: 7 W.D. Appeal Docket, 1983
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joseph D. McMahon, filed a writ of mandamus in the Commonwealth Court asserting that the Pennsylvania Probation and Parole Board had erred in computing his term of imprisonment upon his recommitment for a parole violation based upon subsequent criminal convictions. By memorandum opinion and order dated November 3, 1982, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the writ of mandamus and appellant filed a notice of direct appeal to this Court.

As explained in Pennsylvania Department of Aging v. Lindberg, 503 Pa. 423, 469 A.2d 1012 (1983) and its companion cases,¹ the writ of mandamus in the instant case was not properly a matter addressed to the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761, but was, rather, a matter properly addressed to that court’s appellate jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 763.

Accordingly, appeal to this Court is at our discretion, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 724, not by right of appeal, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 723(a). Pennsylvania Department of Aging v. Lind-berg, supra. We therefore deem the instant “direct appeal” as a petition for allowance of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 1102, and deny the petition.

NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which McDERMOTT, J., joined.

1 . XPress Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 503 Pa. 399, 469 A.2d 1000 (1983); O’Brien v. State Employees Retirement System, 503 Pa. 414, 469 A.2d 1008 (1983); Gossman v. Lower Chanceford Township Board of Supervisors, 503 Pa. 392, 469 A.2d 996 (1983).