These are cross petitions for allowance of appeal from an opinion and order of Superior Court, ___ Pa. Super. ___, 460 A.2d 1121, affirming an order of Cambria County Common Pleas denying petitioner Sheldon Dorian's motion to modify his sentence. The sentencing judge sentenced petitioner Dorian to a six to twelve year prison term for a burglary he committed while on parole. He ordered that sentence to run concurrent with the remaining time on his original sentence which he was required to serve after his parole violation. The Superior Court panel correctly denied petitioner Dorian relief on this claim. However, we grant his petition for allowance of appeal to this Court because Superior Court erroneously concluded that a trial judge may impose a sentence on a parole violator for a crime committed while on parole to run concurrently with the time remaining on his original sentence.

"[T]he law [61 P. S. § 331.21a] is quite clear that a parole violator convicted and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her back time and the new sentence in consecutive order." Commonwealth v. Zuber, 466 Pa. 453, 457, 353 A.2d 441, 443 (1976) (citing Commonwealth v. Draper, 222 Pa. Super. 26, 293 A.2d 614). That law was not affected by the Act of December 30, 1974, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9761. We therefore disapprove of the dictum in the panel's decision which would hold that Section 9761 of the Sentencing Code enables the sentencing judge to direct that a parolee's "front time" sentence run concurrent with his "back time" sentence.

The Commonwealth's petition for allowance of appeal is denied. Mr. Dorian's petition for allowance of appeal is granted and the order of Superior Court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

Summaries of

Com. v. Dorian

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dec 27, 1983

503 Pa. 116 (Pa. 1983)

holding that a new sentence for a new conviction cannot run concurrently with the time remaining on the convicted parole violator's original sentence

Summary of this case from Morales v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

holding under Parole Act that "[t]he law [] is quite clear that a parole violator convicted and sentenced to prison for another offense must serve his or her back time and the new sentence in consecutive order"

Summary of this case from Christaldi v. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

In Commonwealth v. Dorian, [468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983),] a defendant that pled guilty to burglary while on parole filed for relief after the Pennsylvania Parole Board mandated he serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently as the sentencing judge ordered.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Watson

In Commonwealth v. Dorian, 503 Pa. 116, [468 A.2d 1091 (1983) ], the Supreme Court followed Zuber and again held that a trial court may not order that a sentence for a new conviction run concurrently with the time remaining on the CPV's original sentence.

Summary of this case from Kerak v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

In Commonwealth v. Dorian,... 468 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 1983), the Supreme Court followed Zuber and again held that a trial court may not order that a sentence for a new conviction run concurrently with the time remaining on the CPV's original sentence.

Summary of this case from Serrano v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

In Commonwealth v. Dorian, 503 Pa. 116, 468 A.2d 1091 (1983), the Supreme Court followed Zuber and again held that a trial court may not order that a sentence for a new conviction run concurrently with the time remaining on the CPV's original sentence.

Summary of this case from Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

In Commonwealth v. Dorian, 503 Pa. 116, 468 A.2d 1091 (1983), the Supreme Court considered the same situation presented here, the imposition of a new sentence to run concurrent with the time remaining on a prior sentence.

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

In Dorian, we held that a sentencing judge may not impose a sentence on a parole violator for a crime committed while on parole to run concurrently with the time remaining on his original sentence.

Summary of this case from Griffin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr

In Dorian, our Supreme Court held that the enactment of Section 9761 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa. C. S. § 9761, allowing a sentencing court to make a new sentence concurrent with a previously imposed sentence, did not alter that legislative mandate.

Summary of this case from Patrick v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. Parole

In Commonwealth v. Dorian, 503 Pa. 116, 468 A.2d 1091 (1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in clear and unequivocal terms that under Section 21.1(a) of the Parole Act, 61 P. S. § 331.21a(a), parole backtime and new sentences must be served consecutively.

Summary of this case from Rauser v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. Parole

Com. v. Dorian

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

Com. v. Dorian

Com. v. Dorian

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Com. v. Dorian

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

Com. v. Dorian

Com. v. Dorian

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations