Commonwealth ex rel. Pugh v. Rundle

Opinion by

President Judge Bowman,

A single legal issue emerges from sundry pro se “pleadings” filed by petitioner in this case and from the Commonwealth’s responses thereto. Petitioner asserts that he was denied his Tinson1 rights at a January 23, 1969, recommitment hearing conducted by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), in which *354petitioner was found to be a technical parole violator. The Commonwealth responds that petitioner’s “pleadings” as stated have been mooted for the reason that he was subsequently reparoled.

The undisputed facts disclose the history and events…