Commonwealth v. Joraskie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
The issue in this appeal is whether a revocation of parole can be based solely on an unproved urinalysis report suggesting the presence of cannabinoids (marijuana) in the urine of the parolee. The trial court allowed the unproved report to be received and, without further evidence, revoked appellant’s parole. We reverse.
After entering pleas of guilty to two counts of writing bad checks and one count of forgery, Daniel Joraskie was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than twenty-three months. Joraskie was released on parole on…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Commonwealth v. KatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. DavisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. RileySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Grello v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hammel v. ChristianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Com. v. Stevens, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- Commonwealth v. ZeitlenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. ZeitlenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Hammel v. ChristianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.