Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 2004Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully concur. I agree with the majority that the restrictions on the liberty of Jose Enrique Torres (Torres) during the initial forty-five-day “black out” period at the Conewago-Wernersville inpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility (Conewago) were the equivalent of incarceration as contemplated by our supreme court in Cox v. Board of Probation and Parole, 507 Pa. 614, 493 A.2d 680 (1985). Thus, like the majority, I would hold that Torres is entitled to forty-five days credit towards his sentence. However, I write separately to present a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cox v. Commonwealth, Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Wertz v. Chapman TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Commonwealth v. KristonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Commonwealth v. ChiappiniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. WegleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

7 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