Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stodghill v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 2016No. 363 M.D. 2015Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN

Because I believe that the majority’s interpretation of section 9718.1 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9718.1, violates the Statutory Construction Act of 1992 (Act), 1 Pa. C.S. §§ 1501-1991, I respectfully dissent.

Stodghill filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct Department to interpret 42 Pa. C.S. § 9718.1(b), according to its plain meaning and consider him parole-eligible because he has participated in a sex offender treatment program. Department filed preliminary objections, seeking to dismiss the petition under Pa.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Barndt v. Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Cimaszewski v. Bd. of Probation and ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Stodghill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API