Court Opinion

ID: 9731660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:53:48.743786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:20.228529
License: Public Domain

CRUMLISH, Jr., Senior Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I respectfully disagree with the application of the doctrine of res judicata in this case.
I cannot conclude, as does the majority, that the ultimate factual issue at Knox’s conviction revocation hearing, where the Board must show that the parolee was convicted in a court of record, Coleman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 101 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 144, 515 A.2d 1004 (1986) (emphasis added), is identical to the factual issue in a technical violation hearing, where the Board must establish he has breached a general parole condition requiring him to “[cjomply with ... criminal statutes----” 37 Pa.Code § 63.4.
*352Knox was found by the district magistrate to have committed a crime. Indeed, the majority acknowledges that Knox’s admission of guilt would be sufficient to recommit him as a technical violator, had the Board heard both the convicted and technical violation charges in the same proceeding. Majority, at 350, n. 7.
Instead, for unexplained reasons, the Board failed to charge Knox with technical violations at the time of his conviction revocation hearing. Since the Board concedes it should not have subjected Knox to two separate proceedings, I would simply reverse the Board on that ground, rather than apply the doctrine of res judicata.