recommitment hearing in Pennsylvania

2016The Board’s recommitment hearing report contained the following line: “BOARD ONLY – Credit time spent at liberty on parole: [ ] No [ ] Yes (excluded offense on pg. 8).” Id. at 606 .

2016The Board’s recommitment hearing report contained the following line: "BOARD ONLY — Credit time spent at liberty on parole: [ ] No [ ] Yes (excluded offense on pg. 8).” 131 A.3d at 606 .

2026Id. at 1144-45 .

2020Accordingly, the Board 4 61 Pa. C.S. §§ 101-6309. 5 “Our scope of review of the Board’s decision denying administrative relief is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or constitutional rights have been violated.” Fisher v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 62 A.3d 1073 , 1075 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 5 addressed only the merits of Mercer’s recommitment challenge, and the timeliness of his December 3, 2018 appeal is now moot.

2016At the recommitment hearing, the trial court 7 But cf. Forbes v. Department of Corrections, 931 A.2d 88, 93-94 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (holding that DOC’s aggregation of Forbes’ sentences did not violate his right to serve a continuous sentence, where DOC did not actually release Forbes from prison and Forbes did not request credit for time spent outside of prison), aff’d, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. 2008). 8 “While recognizing that decisions of our sister Superior Court are not binding upon this Court, we always give great deference to their persuasive wisdom and logic.” In re Superior- Pacific Fund, Inc.,

2002Citing Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 507 Pa. 614 , 493 A.2d 680 (1985), we determined, given Meehan’s allegations of the restrictive nature of Keenan House, that the Board must develop a record at a subsequent recommitment hearing and make factual findings as to whether Mee-han’s participation in such a program constituted time at liberty on parole for which no credit is given.

2002Citing Cox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 507 Pa. 614 , 493 A.2d 680 (1985), we determined, given Meehan’s allegations of the restrictive nature of Keenan House, that the Board must develop a record at a subsequent recommitment hearing and make factual findings as to whether Mee-han’s participation in such a program constituted time at liberty on parole for which no credit is given.

1989See Whittington v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 58 , 404 A.2d 782 (1979) (failure to challenge delay in holding preliminary hearing before final hearing is held precludes relief); Commonwealth v. Perry, 254 Pa. Superior Ct. 48 , 385 A.2d 518 (1978) (parolee not entitled to new revocation hearing even though no preliminary hearing was held because parolee did not raise the issue before the final revocation hearing).

1989See Whittington v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 58 , 404 A.2d 782 (1979) (failure to challenge delay in holding preliminary hearing before final hearing is held precludes relief); Commonwealth v. Perry, 254 Pa. Superior Ct. 48 , 385 A.2d 518 (1978) (parolee not entitled to new revocation hearing even though no preliminary hearing was held because parolee did not raise the issue before the final revocation hearing).

1989Because a parolees admissions to parole violations constitute substantial evidence to support the Boards recommitment order, Falasco at 327 , 521 A.2d at 995 , and the officer presiding at the preliminary hearing was impartial, 'the Boards order denying administrative relief must be affirmed.

1969In the case now before us, a full hearing took place, and there can be no doubt as to the value of counsel in developing and probing factual and legal situations which may determine on which side of the prison walls appellant will be residing. "[T]he aid of counsel in marshalling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case . . . is apparent." Mempa v. Rhay, supra at 135 , 88 S. Ct. at 257 . [2] In light of this reasoning, it is clear that the Commonwealth's argument that counsel is not required at the recommi

1969In the case now before us, a full hearing took place, and there can be no doubt as to the value of counsel in developing and probing factual and legal situations which may determine on which side of the prison walls appellant will be residing. “[T]he aid of counsel in marshalling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case ... is apparent.” Mempa v. Rhay, supra at 135 , 88 S. Ct. at 257 . 2 In light of this reasoning, it is clear that the Commonwealth’s argument that counsel is not required at the recommitmen

1939It is so ordered. 1 Substantially re-enacting a like provision in the Act of May 3, 1850, P. L. 654. 2 Burnside, J. in Clellans v. Com., 8 Pa. 223, 228 .