Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harden v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 13, 2009No. 401 C.D. 2008Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge PELLEGRINI.

It is undisputed that Penn Pavilion is a Department of Corrections’ institution operated on its behalf under contract by a private party where prisoners and parolees are placed. Contrary to our ease law, the majority holds that Raymon Harden (Harden) is not entitled to any credit for time served on parole at Penn Pavilion because he was “at liberty on parole” as the restriction is not the “equivalent of incarceration” and no armed escort accompanied him when he left the facility. In so holding, the majority hollows out our Supreme Court’s decision in Cox…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Cox v. Commonwealth, Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Commonwealth v. ConahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Lock v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Haun v. CavellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API