Case Title: Conde v. PA Board of Probation & Parole (Per Curiam Order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT KEITH CONDE, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : No. 137 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Per Curiam Order of the Commonwealth Court at Docket Number 431 MD 2002, dated September 3, 2002. ORDER PER CURIAM: Decided: May 30, 2003 AND NOW, this 30thday of May, 2003, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. The Commonwealth Court correctly dismissed Appellant’s procedural due process claims on mootness grounds. Appellant’s additional claim of entitlement to release upon completion of service of his backtime, which was not rendered moot, states no basis for mandamus relief, since the determination at issue was within discretion of the Board. Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001) (mandamus will not lie where substance of Board’s discretionary action is subject of challenge); Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999) (denial of parole is generally discretionary matter not subject to review). Mr. Justice Nigro dissents.