Legal Opinion · Dissent

Andrews v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 24, 1997Published

1DissentMcGINLEY, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I believe that the majority has misinterpreted the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Initially, I disagree with the majority’s assertion that “once the trial court set nominal bail, the authorities were required to immediately release Andrews, with or without the execution of a bond.” Majority opinion at 757 (emphasis added). This assertion is in direct contradiction to the official comment to Rule 1100, which states, “[w]hen admitted to nominal bail pursuant to this rule, the defendant must execute a bail bond.” Accordingly, Andrews was not entitled to be released…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Rodriques v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Pierce v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Davis v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API