White v. Pa. Parole Bd.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) order, determining that the Board relied upon admissible evidence when properly recommitting White as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) order, determining that the Board relied upon admissible evidence when properly recommitting White as a convicted parole violator (CPV), and
The New Jersey Supreme Court paroled a cop-killer who was sentenced to life plus twenty-four years. In 1974, a jury found Acoli guilty of a state trooper.s murder and the
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of a petition for compassionate release. A.M. suffers from end-stage multiple sclerosis, a progressive condition that renders her physically incapable
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Parole Board’s order denying a petition for time credit. When he was paroled from state prison, the petitioner was required to stay at the
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to “double counting” of the time he spent in pre-trial custody on both a parole violation detainer and an
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court succinctly stated the issue: Whether substantial evidence supported the Parole Board’s conclusion that the plaintiff-parolee’s statement constituted assaultive behavior sufficient to rescind his automatic reparole. The
If you don’t want to hire Sullivan | Simon for your ghostwriting needs (you do), maybe you should employ Christopher Toland instead. Mr. Toland did a heck of a job
The Third Circuit applied the Ex Post Facto Clause to parole hearings. In the 1970s, Homes committed multiple murders while on parole. In 1997, while he was serving life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentences,
An en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a landmark decision regarding a trial court’s authority to revoke probation. The Court interpreted 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721 and §
The defendant appealed following revocation of parole for his conviction of two crimes. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the Commonwealth did not establish the specific conditions of
Copyright Sullivan Simon.
All rights reserved.