48 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1961–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences1986“It is clear from an examination of the general conditions of parole that actual criminal conduct is not necessary in order to establish a technical parole violation.” Hawkins v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 88 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 547, 555 , 490 A.2d 942, 947 (1985). 1986“It is clear from an examination of the general conditions of parole that actual criminal conduct is not necessary in order to establish a technical parole violation.” Hawkins v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 88 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 547, 555 , 490 A.2d 942, 947 (1985). | 2 | 3 |
Hudak v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2026Moreover, “in order to prove a [technical] violation of a condition of parole[,] the Board is required to demonstrate that the petitioner was at least somewhat at fault for the technical parole violation.” Hudak v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 757 A.2d 439, 440-41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), appeal denied, 771 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 2001). 2025See Hudak v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 757 A.2d 439, 441 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Court reversed determination that Hudak was a TPV in the absence of a showing that he was at fault for his discharge from a community corrections center before the prescribed six months when it was clear that he was discharged for purely medical reasons and had been performing well there). | 2 | 2 |
Rivenbark v. COM. PA. BD. OF PROB. & P.green2 sentences1987The petitioners brief, however, addresses only his prior recommitment, under a Board order, dated May 21, 1984, and the Boards January 23, 1986 order, which modified that recommitment by deleting any reference to a technical parole violation of General Condition No. 5B (refrain from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons). 3 The petitioner here urges that, pursuant to Rivenbark v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 509 Pa. 248 , 501 A.2d 1110 (1985), the finding of a technical parole violation of General Condition No. 5B is unwarranted. 1987The petitioners brief, however, addresses only his prior recommitment, under a Board order, dated May 21, 1984, and the Boards January 23, 1986 order, which modified that recommitment by deleting any reference to a technical parole violation of General Condition No. 5B (refrain from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons). 3 The petitioner here urges that, pursuant to Rivenbark v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 509 Pa. 248 , 501 A.2d 1110 (1985), the finding of a technical parole violation of General Condition No. 5B is unwarranted. | 1 | 4 |
Flowers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2025The reviewing court “leave[s] the sufficiency of the evidence to the Board’s discretion, and we will not interfere with [its] finding of a technical parole violation if it is supported by substantial evidence.” Flowers v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 987 A.2d 1269 , 1271 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 2025If the Board’s “finding of a technical parole violation . . . is supported by substantial evidence,” “we will not interfere with [that] finding.” Flowers, 987 A.2d at 1271 n.2. | 1 | 3 |
Miller v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2009The Commonwealth further cites Miller v. Pennsylvania Board of Proabation and Parole, 837 A.2d 618 at 622 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) for the proposition that a person cannot commit a technical parole violation after having been reincarcerated because one is no longer on parole within the me[aning] of Section 21.1(b) of the Parole Act. 2005Jackson cites Miller v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 837 A.2d 618 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), for the proposition that because he was still incarcerated he cannot be charged with a technical parole violation. | 1 | 2 |
Morris v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2004To hold otherwise ‘would benefit a parolee who committed a technical parole violation and then received a reparole ... by shielding him from forfeiture of the street time which preceded the technical violation, while affording no such benefit to a parolee who is free on parole for a like total period, but who commits no technical violation’ ” Houser, 682 A.2d at 1368 (quoting from Morris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 85 , 465 A.2d 97, 98 (1983)). 2004To hold otherwise ‘would benefit a parolee who committed a technical parole violation and then received a reparole ... by shielding him from forfeiture of the street time which preceded the technical violation, while affording no such benefit to a parolee who is free on parole for a like total period, but who commits no technical violation’ ” Houser, 682 A.2d at 1368 (quoting from Morris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 85 , 465 A.2d 97, 98 (1983)). | 1 | 2 |
McCauley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen2 sentences2003Id. 510 A.2d at 879 . 2003Id. 510 A.2d at 879 . | 1 | 2 |
Hossback v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2002Id. at 879, see Pa.Code § 71.2(20); Hossback v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Cmwlth. 344 , 471 A.2d 186 (1984). 2002Id. at 879, see Pa.Code § 71.2(20); Hossback v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Cmwlth. 344 , 471 A.2d 186 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen1 sentence2025“Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.” Miller v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 522 A.2d 720, 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2024It is well established that “time spent in custody pursuant to a detainer warrant shall be credited to a [CPV’s] original term . . . only when the parolee was eligible for and had satisfied bail requirements for the new offense and thus remained incarcerated only by reason of the detainer warrant lodged against him.” Barnes v. [Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&] Parole, 203 A.3d 382, 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Gaito v. [Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&] Parole, . . . 412 A.2d 568, 571 ([Pa.] 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
R.Barnes v. PBPPgreen1 sentence2024It is well established that “time spent in custody pursuant to a detainer warrant shall be credited to a [CPV’s] original term . . . only when the parolee was eligible for and had satisfied bail requirements for the new offense and thus remained incarcerated only by reason of the detainer warrant lodged against him.” Barnes v. [Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&] Parole, 203 A.3d 382, 392 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Gaito v. [Pa.] [Bd.] of Prob[.] [&] Parole, . . . 412 A.2d 568, 571 ([Pa.] 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson Township v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 47-49 & 59. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen1 sentence2023See C.R. at 79, 81. 9 “This Court’s ‘review over actions of the Board is limited to determining whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law occurred or whether constitutional rights were violated.’ Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. [&] Parole, 954 A.2d 107 , 109 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).” Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 184 A.3d 1021 , 1023 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). 5 6138(a) of the Parole Code at the time he pled guilty and was sentenced for summary disorderly conduct, his plea must be treated as a technical parole violation. | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2023See C.R. at 79, 81. 9 “This Court’s ‘review over actions of the Board is limited to determining whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law occurred or whether constitutional rights were violated.’ Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. [&] Parole, 954 A.2d 107 , 109 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).” Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 184 A.3d 1021 , 1023 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). 5 6138(a) of the Parole Code at the time he pled guilty and was sentenced for summary disorderly conduct, his plea must be treated as a technical parole violation. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth ex rel. Sparks v. Russellgreen1 sentence2020Sparks v. Russell, 169 A.2d 884, 886 (Pa. 1961) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sierragreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Amaker v. Bd. of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2016One can only infer that this is the result of the Board[’]s inability to take custody of the rifle round due to the round being part of the conviction.” Britton Amended Br. at 9-10 (emphasis added). 11 parolee was convicted.” Amaker v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 576 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa. 1990) (emphasis added).12 As a condition of his parole, Britton expressly agreed that he “SHALL NOT POSSESS AMMUNITION UNDER ANY CONDITION OR FOR ANY REASON.” C.R. at 19, 26. | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2013Id.; see also Montgomery v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 808 A.2d 999 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (finding parolee serving backtime on a technical parole violation who was transferred from a state facility to a county facility for a trial on new charges never left the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2012However, the procedures mandated by section 71.3 apply only to a parolee “not already detained after appropriate hearings for other criminal charges or technical violations.” 37 Pa.Code § 71.3; see also Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 952 A.2d 710, 712 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (analyzing procedural requirements for a technical parole violation under 37 Pa.Code § 71.2). “[A] preliminary [parole] revocation hearing need not be conducted if the parolee has been given a preliminary hearing on the charges for the offenses he allegedly committed while on parole.” Gant v. Pennsylvania Bo | 1 | 1 |
Gant v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012However, the procedures mandated by section 71.3 apply only to a parolee “not already detained after appropriate hearings for other criminal charges or technical violations.” 37 Pa.Code § 71.3; see also Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 952 A.2d 710, 712 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (analyzing procedural requirements for a technical parole violation under 37 Pa.Code § 71.2). “[A] preliminary [parole] revocation hearing need not be conducted if the parolee has been given a preliminary hearing on the charges for the offenses he allegedly committed while on parole.” Gant v. Pennsylvania Bo 2012However, the procedures mandated by section 71.3 apply only to a parolee “not already detained after appropriate hearings for other criminal charges or technical violations.” 37 Pa.Code § 71.3; see also Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 952 A.2d 710, 712 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (analyzing procedural requirements for a technical parole violation under 37 Pa.Code § 71.2). “[A] preliminary [parole] revocation hearing need not be conducted if the parolee has been given a preliminary hearing on the charges for the offenses he allegedly committed while on parole.” Gant v. Pennsylvania Bo | 1 | 1 |
| Threats v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nickens v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brantley v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Greenleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gaito v. Pennsylvania Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Davis
green
2 sentences2006Commonwealth v. Davis, 234 Pa.Super. 31 , 336 A.2d 616 (1975). 2006Commonwealth v. Davis, 234 Pa.Super. 31 , 336 A.2d 616 (1975). | 2 | 1977–2006 |
Sigafoos v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2026“A preponderance of the evidence is ‘such proof as leads the fact[]finder . . . to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.’” Id. (quoting Sigafoos, 503 A.2d at 1079 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Smalls v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2026This means that “[t]he Board must prove a technical parole violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Smalls, 823 A.2d at 275 . 2026“A preponderance of the evidence is ‘such proof as leads the fact[]finder . . . to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.’” Id. (quoting Sigafoos, 503 A.2d at 1079 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hufmen v. Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2023In his pro se brief, Williams cites Hufmen v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 58 A.3d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) and argues that the conviction was not in a court of record because it was before a trial judge operating as the functional equivalent of a magisterial district judge. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Chapman v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2020Chapman, 484 A.2d at 416 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bennett v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence2019Citing Bennett v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 505 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), he asserts he should receive credit for “time spent in drug and alcohol treatment.” Pet’r’s Br. at 14. 9 Robinson contends that the involuntary nature of his placement in Luzerne for inpatient treatment demonstrates his time there qualified as confinement. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2019Relying on Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 147 A.3d 610 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), Burrell urges the application of Section 6138(a)(5.1), and maintains the Board erred in returning him to Maryland before dealing with his new Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, conviction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Threats v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLE
green
1 sentence2016Accordingly, “[i]n Threats [v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 553 A.2d 906 (Pa. 1989),] the [Pennsylvania Supreme] Court clarified Rivenbark to require a determination of whether the technical parole violation is also a criminal offense for which the 11 Britton expounded: “Moreover, the Board was unable to enter the rifle round into evidence. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stewart v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2005Specifically, Appellant argued that the Board, through its denial of parole, had continuously violated the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions because the Board had applied the criteria of the 1996 amendment to Appellant. [4] Further, Appellant claimed that the Board abused its discretion by imposing back-time in excess of the maximum presumptive range [5] for a technical parole violation, and abused its discretion by refusing to parole Appellant to the INS. [6] By per curiam order, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Appellant's petition, stating that "denial 2005Specifically, Appellant argued that the Board, through its denial of parole, had continuously violated the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions because the Board had applied the criteria of the 1996 amendment to Appellant. 4 Further, Appellant claimed that the Board abused its discretion by imposing back-time in excess of the maximum presumptive range 5 for a technical parole violation, and abused its discretion by refusing to parole Appellant to the INS. 6 By per curiam order, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Appellant’s petition, stating that “denial of pa | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Reider v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Houser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Johnson v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLE green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Johnson v. COM., PA. BD. OF PROB. & PAR. neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Wagner v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Knox v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Harper v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Nicastro v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Commonwealth v. McClendon green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Johnson v. PA. BD. OF PROB. & PAROLE green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Krantz v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Keough v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Garris v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Whitmore v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Commonwealth v. Brown green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Zimmerman v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Gagnon v. Scarpelli red | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Morrissey v. Brewer green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| United States Ex Rel. Bogish v. Tees green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.