Case Name: Joseph D. McMAHON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1983-12-29
Citations: 504 Pa. 240
Docket Number: No. 7 W.D. Appeal Docket, 1983
Parties: Joseph D. McMAHON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Appellee.
Judges: Before ROBERTS, C.J., and NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDermott, hutchinson and zappala, jj.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 504
Pages: 240–244

Head Matter:
470 A.2d 1337
Joseph D. McMAHON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Sept. 12, 1983.
Decided Dec. 29, 1983.
Joseph D. McMahon, I.P.P., for appellant.
Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, Bd. of Probation & Parole, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before ROBERTS, C.J., and NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDermott, hutchinson and zappala, jj.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Joseph D. McMahon, filed a writ of mandamus in the Commonwealth Court asserting that the Pennsylvania Probation and Parole Board had erred in computing his term of imprisonment upon his recommitment for a parole violation based upon subsequent criminal convictions. By memorandum opinion and order dated November 3, 1982, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the writ of mandamus and appellant filed a notice of direct appeal to this Court.
As explained in Pennsylvania Department of Aging v. Lindberg, 503 Pa. 423, 469 A.2d 1012 (1983) and its companion cases, the writ of mandamus in the instant case was not properly a matter addressed to the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761, but was, rather, a matter properly addressed to that court's appellate jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 763.
Accordingly, appeal to this Court is at our discretion, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 724, not by right of appeal, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 723(a). Pennsylvania Department of Aging v. Lind- berg, supra. We therefore deem the instant "direct appeal" as a petition for allowance of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 1102, and deny the petition.
NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which McDERMOTT, J., joined.
. XPress Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 503 Pa. 399, 469 A.2d 1000 (1983); O'Brien v. State Employees Retirement System, 503 Pa. 414, 469 A.2d 1008 (1983); Gossman v. Lower Chanceford Township Board of Supervisors, 503 Pa. 392, 469 A.2d 996 (1983).