×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
PA Prisoners Enjoy Right to Parole Consideration
By William L. Marshall
In an opinion entered February 28, 1994, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that under Section 11 of the PA Parole Act (61 P.S. § 331.22), while the PA Board of Probation and Parole ("the Board"), in its discretion has authority to either grant or deny a state prisoner parole. Section 11 does not in anyway restrict a prisoner's right to apply for parole once a minimum sentence expires. Nor does it grant the Board discretion to refuse to consider any prisoner's application for parole. See: Marshall v. PA Board of Probation & Parole, Case No. 198 M.D. 1993 (PA Commonwealth Ct. 2-28-94) _ A.2d _ (1994).
This ruling arose from a civil action commenced by William L. Marshall, a state prisoner at SCI-Huntingdon, challenging a decision by the Board refusing to process his parole application until he gained a favorable recommendation from the Pa. Department of Corrections. The court determined that the Board improperly refused to process Marshall's parole application and ordered relief.
The decision is important to Pennsylvania prisoners because: (1) Under state law, parole decisions are discretionary, there are no "good time" provisions; prisoners have no right to parole and only become "eligible" for release at the expiration of the minimal sentence. Bachman v. Jeffes, 488 F. Supp 107 (MD PA 1980). (2) The Board has implemented a policy of refusing parole consideration to segregated, and certain prisoners requiring them to complete their total (maximum) sentences. Gillespie v. Pa. Board of Probation & Parole, 505 A.2d 403, appeal denied 515 PA. 588, (1986). And (3) The court had previously held that because prisoners have no inherent right to parole, any decision by the Board was not subject to judicial review. Reider v. Pa. Board of Probation & Parole, 514 A.2d 967 (1986).
Finally, under section 11 of the Parole Act, to be considered for release, a state prisoner must submit an ad hoc parole application six months before completion of the minimum term. The board is then mandated to interview the prisoner and render a decision within the six month period. If parole is refused, the Board must provide a brief statement of reasons for its action and the prisoner can immediately resubmit a new application.
While a prisoner in Pennsylvania has no right to parole, he/she does enjoy a protectable liberty interest in being seen and heard and in compelling the Board to comply with the appropriate law.
In an opinion entered February 28, 1994, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that under Section 11 of the PA Parole Act (61 P.S. § 331.22), while the PA Board of Probation and Parole ("the Board"), in its discretion has authority to either grant or deny a state prisoner parole. Section 11 does not in anyway restrict a prisoner's right to apply for parole once a minimum sentence expires. Nor does it grant the Board discretion to refuse to consider any prisoner's application for parole. See: Marshall v. PA Board of Probation & Parole, Case No. 198 M.D. 1993 (PA Commonwealth Ct. 2-28-94) _ A.2d _ (1994).
This ruling arose from a civil action commenced by William L. Marshall, a state prisoner at SCI-Huntingdon, challenging a decision by the Board refusing to process his parole application until he gained a favorable recommendation from the Pa. Department of Corrections. The court determined that the Board improperly refused to process Marshall's parole application and ordered relief.
The decision is important to Pennsylvania prisoners because: (1) Under state law, parole decisions are discretionary, there are no "good time" provisions; prisoners have no right to parole and only become "eligible" for release at the expiration of the minimal sentence. Bachman v. Jeffes, 488 F. Supp 107 (MD PA 1980). (2) The Board has implemented a policy of refusing parole consideration to segregated, and certain prisoners requiring them to complete their total (maximum) sentences. Gillespie v. Pa. Board of Probation & Parole, 505 A.2d 403, appeal denied 515 PA. 588, (1986). And (3) The court had previously held that because prisoners have no inherent right to parole, any decision by the Board was not subject to judicial review. Reider v. Pa. Board of Probation & Parole, 514 A.2d 967 (1986).
Finally, under section 11 of the Parole Act, to be considered for release, a state prisoner must submit an ad hoc parole application six months before completion of the minimum term. The board is then mandated to interview the prisoner and render a decision within the six month period. If parole is refused, the Board must provide a brief statement of reasons for its action and the prisoner can immediately resubmit a new application.
While a prisoner in Pennsylvania has no right to parole, he/she does enjoy a protectable liberty interest in being seen and heard and in compelling the Board to comply with the appropriate law.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Marshall v. PA Board of Probation & Parole
| Year | 1994 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 638 A.2d 451 (Penn.Comwlth 1994) aff'd, 668 A.2d 1 |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
03/28/94 WILLIAM MARSHALL v. COMMONWEALTH
[1] COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
[2] No. 198 M. D. 1993
[3] 1994.PA.
[4] March 28, 1994
[5] WILLIAM MARSHALL, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT
[6] Original Opinion of February 28, 1994, Reported at: 162 Pa. Commw. 256, 638 A.2d 451.
[7] AUTHOR: CRAIG
[8] ORDER
[9] NOW, March 28, 1994, having considered petitioner's motion for reconsideration and respondent's answer, the motion is denied.
[10] David W. Craig, P.J.
[1] COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
[2] No. 198 M. D. 1993
[3] 1994.PA.
[4] March 28, 1994
[5] WILLIAM MARSHALL, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT
[6] Original Opinion of February 28, 1994, Reported at: 162 Pa. Commw. 256, 638 A.2d 451.
[7] AUTHOR: CRAIG
[8] ORDER
[9] NOW, March 28, 1994, having considered petitioner's motion for reconsideration and respondent's answer, the motion is denied.
[10] David W. Craig, P.J.