Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 28, 2001Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that a convicted parole violator is not entitled to credit against the maximum sentence for time confined by an electronic home monitoring system. Section 21.1(a) of the Act commonly known as the Parole Act1 provides that a convicted parole violator who is recommitted “shall be given no credit for the time at liberty on parole.” Thus the pertinent question is whether time spent confined by a home monitoring system is time “at liberty on parole.” This phrase has never been conclusively defined. Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KristonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Jackson v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLECommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Commonwealth v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API