HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-0296 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
PAUL EUGENE GREEN
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-0296 CRIMINAL TERM
NO. 95-1105 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS and MOTION FOR
REDUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE
BEFORE OLER. J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2.J3'~'day of July, 2000, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition [for] Writ of Habeas Corpus [and] Motion for Reduction [or]
Modification of Sentence, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion,
Defendant's petition and motion are denied.
BY THE COURT,
'esl~e c~Oler.~Jr3z~l ~~ I ,
¥
District Attorney's Office
Paul Eugene Green, DA-2337
P.O. Box 256
Waymart, PA 18472-0256
Defendant, Pro Se
~rc
COMMONWEALTH
Vo
PAUL EUGENE GREEN
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-0296 CRIMINAL TERM
NO. 95-1105 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS and MOTION FOR
REDUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE
BEFORE OLER. J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J., July , 2000.
In these criminal cases Defendant pled no contest to a charge of sexual
assault at 95-1105 Criminal Term, and no contest to a charge of Spousal Sexual
Assault at 95-0296 Criminal Term. He was sentenced by former President Judge
Harold E. Sheely on April 4, 1996, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not
less than 39 months nor more than 7 years in a state correctional institution.
For disposition at this time is a document filed by Defendant entitled
"Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus, Motion for Reduction of Modification of
Sentence." The basis for the petition for writ of habeas corpus is that the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole has abused its discretion in failing to
parole him, given his good conduct as an inmate, successful participation in
various prison programs, and support from agencies outside the prison system.
The basis for the motion for reduction or modification of sentence is that such
action by this court would rectify the injustice created by the board's abuse of
discretion.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's petition and motion must
be denied.
DISCUSSION
In Pennsylvania it has been held that a state court does not have jurisdiction
to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus based upon a claim that the State
Board of Probation and Parole abused its discretion in denying parole to a state
inmate. Myers v. Ridge, 712 A.2d 791 (Pa. Commw. 1998), appeal denied, __
Pa. __., 742 A.2d 173 (1999). Furthermore, this court in particular does not have
jurisdiction to review determinations of the state board. See Commonwealth v.
LeGrande, 389 Pa. Super. 457, 567 A.2d 693 (1989).
In addition, it is well settled that, "[i]n general, a sentencing court has
jurisdiction to modify a sentence only in the first 30 days after imposition."
Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 445 Pa. Super. 419, 423, 665 A.2d 1194, 1196 (1995).
This period has long since passed in the present case.
For these reasons, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this T.[~day of July, 2000, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition [for] Writ of Habeas Corpus [and] Motion for Reduction [or]
Modification of Sentence, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion,
Defendant's petition and motion are denied.
2
District Attorney's Office
Paul Eugene Green, DA-2337
P.O. Box 256
Waymart, PA 18472-0256
Defendant, Pro Se
BY THE COURT,
esley erst., .
:rc