Should a Parolee Upon Revocation of Parole Serve Sentence for New Crime and Balance of Parole Sentence Consecutively ?
In Commonwealth v. Ferrer, 319 Pa. Super. 152, 465 A.2d 1275 (Pa.Super. 1983), Ferrer was on parole from two separate county sentences 4 when he committed a new offense which resulted in his incarceration.
Two separate parole violation hearings were held before two different judges.
Ferrer's paroles were revoked and he was recommitted to serve the balance of each respective sentence.
Neither recommitment order stated whether it should be served concurrent with or consecutive to the sentence Ferrer was then serving for the offense out of which the parole violations arose.
Neither recommitment order stated whether it should be served concurrent with or consecutive to the other recommitment.
Prison officials, however, computed the balances to be served consecutively to the sentence Ferrer was then serving.
Ferrer filed a separate writ of mandamus with respect to his incarceration under each sentence balance.
Both writs were denied and he appealed from each denial to this court, which consolidated the appeals.
The issue to be decided was whether prison officials could legally compute the recommitment balances to run consecutive to the sentence imposed for the offense or offenses out of which the parole violations arose.
The Court noted that by statute, parolees from state penitentiaries, upon revocation of parole, must serve in consecutive fashion the sentence for the new crime as well as the unexpired balance of the parole sentence. Ferrer at 1277.