Court Opinion

ID: 9943885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:08:16.790742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:49:50.541919
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately only to note that it is not necessary for the Court to exhaustively analyze the issues raised by Nieves once it determines he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
It is axiomatic that mandamus will not lie to compel a purely discretionary act, or "to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way. . . ." Coady v.Vaughn, 564 Pa. 604, 608, 770 A.2d 287, 290 (2001) (quoting Pennsylvania Dental Association v. InsuranceDepartment, *Page 422 512 Pa. 217, 228, 516 A.2d 647, 652 (1986)). Nieves asks this Court to compel the Board to exercise its discretion in a particular way by granting him parole. The majority concludes, correctly, that Nieves is not entitled to such relief. I would deny his petition on that basis and omit what is essentiallydicta regarding the merits of his challenge to the Board's policy restricting the places where paroled sex offenders may reside.