Ralph v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Ralph v. Commonwealth

488 A.2d 377, 87 Pa. Commw. 636, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 850

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 22, 1985

DocketAppeal, No. 1980 C.D. 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 488 A.2d 377 (Ralph v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ralph v. Commonwealth, 488 A.2d 377, 87 Pa. Commw. 636, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 850 (Pa. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Barry,

This appeal follows an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) which denied petitioner, John P. Ralph’s request for administrative relief. • •

On July 18, 1981, petitioner, while on parole, was sentenced on a number of convictions for burglary and robbery to concurrent prison terms of ten to twenty years. The Board recommitted petitioner for twelve months as a technical parole violator and sixty months as a convicted parole violator for a total of seventy-two months on baoktime. His petition requesting administrative relief was thereafter denied and this appeal followed.

Petitioner argues ¡that he should have been recommitted based on eleven, and not twelve, first degree felonies for which he was sentenced and, therefore, the amount of backtime assessed against him was excessive.

Petitioner’s contention is without merit. Had he been convicted for only one robbery and one burglary as well as the technical violation, then the total presumptive range would have been between forty-five ■and seventy-six months. 37 Pa. Code §75.2. The Board recommitted petitioner for seventy-two months, a term within this presumptive range. Moreover, we have held that the Board has the discretion to recommit for each separate criminal conviction. Corley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 529, 478 A.2d 146 (1984). In Cor[638]*638ley, parolee was convicted of disorderly conduct, which has a presumptive range of one to six months, and of simple assault, which has a presumptive range of nine to fifteen months. The Board recommitted the parolee for eleven months hacktime based solely on the simple assault conviction. The Board’s order, we determined, was not excessive.

Absent evidence that the Board violated petitioner’s constitutional rights, or that the Board either failed to exercise its discretion or arbitrarily and capriciously abused its discretion, we will not disturb its order. Bradshaw v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 461 A.2d 342 (1983).

Order

Now, February 22, 1985, the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, dated May 8, 1984, at No. 5038-M, is affirmed.

Judge Williams, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Barry,

This appeal follows an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) which denied petitioner, John P. Ralph’s request for administrative relief. • •

On July 18, 1981, petitioner, while on parole, was sentenced on a number of convictions for burglary and robbery to concurrent prison terms of ten to twenty years. The Board recommitted petitioner for twelve months as a technical parole violator and sixty months as a convicted parole violator for a total of seventy-two months on baoktime. His petition requesting administrative relief was thereafter denied and this appeal followed.

Petitioner argues ¡that he should have been recommitted based on eleven, and not twelve, first degree felonies for which he was sentenced and, therefore, the amount of backtime assessed against him was excessive.

Petitioner’s contention is without merit. Had he been convicted for only one robbery and one burglary as well as the technical violation, then the total presumptive range would have been between forty-five ■and seventy-six months. 37 Pa. Code §75.2. The Board recommitted petitioner for seventy-two months, a term within this presumptive range. Moreover, we have held that the Board has the discretion to recommit for each separate criminal conviction. Corley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 529, 478 A.2d 146 (1984). In Cor[638]*638ley, parolee was convicted of disorderly conduct, which has a presumptive range of one to six months, and of simple assault, which has a presumptive range of nine to fifteen months. The Board recommitted the parolee for eleven months hacktime based solely on the simple assault conviction. The Board’s order, we determined, was not excessive.

Absent evidence that the Board violated petitioner’s constitutional rights, or that the Board either failed to exercise its discretion or arbitrarily and capriciously abused its discretion, we will not disturb its order. Bradshaw v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 461 A.2d 342 (1983).

Order

Now, February 22, 1985, the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, dated May 8, 1984, at No. 5038-M, is affirmed.

Judge Williams, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 A.2d 377, 87 Pa. Commw. 636, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack