Judges Opinions Public Notices, — August 4, 2021 10:56 — 0 Comments

Public Notices, August 4, 2021

Volume 59, No. 1

 

PUBLIC NOTICES

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

FICTITIOUS NAME

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

CHANGE OF NAME

JOB POSTING

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jouseph Lopez-Santos

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Letters Testamentary or of Administration have been granted in the following estates. All persons indebted to the said estate are required to make payment, and those having claims or demands to present the same without delay to the administrators or executors named.

 

FIRST PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF ELIZABETH M. MCGUIRE-HOUTZ, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Patricia McGuire, Administratrix

 

Loreen M. Burkett, Esquire

Weiss Burkett, LLC

802 Walnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF KATHRYN M. ARNOLD, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Jan Louise Arnold, Executrix

609 N. 8th Street

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Edward Coyle, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF JOAN C. WIKE, late of Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executors.

 

Mary B. Gassert, Executor

24 East Richland Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Cynthia A. Oxenreider, Executor

307 Sheep Hill Road

Schaefferstown, PA 17088

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF DOROTHY J. GREENAWALT A/K/A DOROTHY JANE GREENAWALT, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased June 28, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Charles E. Greenawalt II, Executor

175 Clear Spring Road

Annville, PA  17003

 

Christa M. Aplin, Esquire

JSDC Law Offices

11 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300

Hershey, PA  17033

(717) 533-3280

 

ESTATE OF SHARON KAY YANCEY A/K/A SHARON K. YANCEY, late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Skyanne K. Yancey, Executrix

 

Robert D. Knutson, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF LONALD D. HOOVER, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

John M. Zimmerman, Executor

 

Caleb J. Zimmerman, Esquire

Zimmerman Law Office

466 Jonestown Road

Jonestown, PA 17038

 

ESTATE OF STEWART WILLIAM ROBINSON, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Steven Sutherly, Executor

829 Victoria Lane

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

David R. Warner Jr., Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF LARRY B. SCHAUER, SR., late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix

 

Barbara E. Schauer, Administratrix

487 New St.

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Michael S. Bechtold, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF KAREN CLEO MEYERHOFFER, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Scott Allen Meyers, Executor

130 Stanley Dr.

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

Michael S. Bechtold, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF ROY A. KLEINFELTER, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Evelyn J. Kleinfelter, Executrix

765 N. 32nd St.

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Scott L. Grenoble, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MARGARET ELIZABETH FAKE, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator

 

Carl Fake, Administrator

2779 Cedar Run Rd

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Bret M. Wiest, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

SECOND PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF BLANCHE A. BIXLER, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Donald W. Bixler, Executor

 

Jeremy D. Wagner, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF ARLENE F. KLAHR, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Doreen P. Katzaman, Executrix

 

Keith D. Wagner, Esquire

P.O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF LOIS G. MARTIN, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Janet L. Rhen, Executrix

 

Keith D. Wagner, Esquire

P.O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF MELISSA ANN MORRISSEY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrators.

 

Madelyn Morrissey and Sebastian Althouse-Dundore, Administrators

 

John J. Ferry, Jr., Esquire

931 Cumberland Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF LAURA L. GINGRICH, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Steven D. Gingrich, Executor

208 South Grant Street

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

Joseph M. Farrell, Esquire

201/203 South Railroad Street

P.O. Box 113

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF DONALD ARNOLD, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executors.

 

Donald J. Arnold, Jr., Executor

Kathleen M. Glover, Executor

 

Young and Young

44 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 126

Manheim, PA 17545

 

ESTATE OF NICHOLAS A. BOGNER, late of Millcreek Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Michelle S. Sutton, Executrix

Brian K. Bogner, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

THIRD PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF LEON J. KAUFFMAN, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Thomas P. Kauffman, Co-Executor

David W. Kauffman, Co-Executor

Debra E. Kauffman, Co-Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF LORRIANE G. BENTZ, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

David J. Bentz, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Suite D

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF GLENN D. STEYERS, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased 5/5/2021. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Ms. Karen L. Steyers, Administratrix

 

Gary L. Rothschild, Esquire

2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35

Harrisburg, PA 17112

 

ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. SWOYER, late of Jonestown, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

David M. Swoyer, Executor

 

John M. Zimmerman, Esquire

Zimmerman Law Office

466 Jonestown Road

Jonestown, PA 17038

 

ESTATE OF LOUSIE B. DISSINGER, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Thomas Bennett, Executor

 

Matthew M. Karinch, Esquire

Weiss Burkett, LLC

802 Walnut Street,

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

FICTITIOUS NAME

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application for registration of a fictitious name,

PA Dairy Association, for the conduct of business in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, with the

principal place of business being 440 Plaza Drive, Palmyra, Pennsylvania 17078 was made to the

Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the

28 th day of July, 2021 pursuant to the Act of Assembly of December 16, 1982, Act 295.

The name and address of the only entity owning or interested in the said business is: PA

Dairymen’s Association, 440 Plaza Drive, Palmyra, Pennsylvania 17078.

 

Spencer G. Nauman, Jr., Esquire

Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP

200 North Third Street, 18th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

(717) 236-3010

 

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Certificate of Organization was filed with the Corporation Bureau of the Pennsylvania Department of State, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of forming a domestic business corporation under the Pennsylvania Uniform Limited Liability Company Act of 2016 (P.L. 1328, No. 170), 15 Pa. C. S. A. §8811 et. seq. as amended. The purpose of the corporation is to provide general business services, and to engage in any other lawful business a corporation may engage in.

 

The name and address of the corporation is: Pete’s Roofing & Remodeling, LLC, 276 Palmyra Bellegrove Road, Annville, PA 17003.

 

Ernest J. Woolever, Esquire

42 West Main Street

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

CHANGE OF NAME

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 21st day of July, 2021, the Petition of Kimberly Sue Merkert was filed to Lebanon County docket no. 2021-00851 requesting a decree to allow a change of name. Petitioner requests her name be changed to KIRA SUE MERKERT. The Court has fixed the 26th day of August, 2021, at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 1 of the Lebanon County Courthouse, located at 400 South 8th Street, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing of said Petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the said Petitioner should not be granted.

 

Ernest J. Woolever, Esquire

Attorney for Petitioner

42 W. Main Street

Palmyra, PA 17078

(717) 461-7762

 

 

JOB POSTING

 

Steiner & Sandoe Attorneys at Law is seeking a full-time legal assistant to assist with our decedent’s estates practice. Experience with decedent’s estates is preferred but not required. Candidates should be proficient using Microsoft Office, have excellent attention to detail and proofreading skills. This position requires strong interpersonal skills and communication skills, as well as excellent time management skills and calendaring. We truly value our clients so we are looking for someone who will make our clients’ needs a priority.

 

Steiner & Sandoe offers a great work environment and competitive compensation and benefits commensurate with experience. If you are interested in joining our team, please forward your resume and salary expectations to Steiner & Sandoe, 36 West Main Avenue, Myerstown, PA 17067.

 

JUDGES OPINION

 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jouseph Lopez-Santos

 

Criminal Action-Law-Post Conviction Collateral Relief-Sentencing-Credit-Time Served-Double Credit-Expiration of Minimum Sentence

 

Jouseph Lopez-Santos (“Defendant”) received an aggregate sentence of eighteen (18) months to five (5) years’ imprisonment on convictions at two (2) action numbers involving sexual assault charges.  The Court stated at the time of Defendant’s sentencing on the convictions its intent not to afford Defendant credit for time served as a result of prior probation and parole violation sentences.  Defendant filed a Petition for Post Conviction Collateral Relief seeking credit for time served in excess of his minimum sentences on charges at other action numbers on the sentences imposed on the within convictions.

 

  1. Title 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5) requires that a convicted parole violator serve back time on an original state sentence before beginning to serve time on a newly imposed state sentence.

 

  1. Back time may not run concurrently with a new sentence for an offense committed while on parole.

 

  1. If a defendant is being held in custody solely due to a detainer and otherwise has met the requirements for bail on new charges, the time spent in custody shall be credited against the original sentence.

 

  1. If a defendant remains incarcerated prior to trial because he or she has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, the time spent in custody must be credited to the new sentence.

 

  1. Title 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(4) makes clear that credit on a sentence may be granted only when it already has not been credited toward another sentence.

 

  1. There is no right to automatic release from custody upon expiration of a minimum sentence, which simply designates the time at which a defendant may be eligible for parole.

 

  1. Since Defendant never was afforded parole at the expiration of his minimum sentences on charges at other action numbers, Defendant is not entitled to credit for any time served beyond the minimum sentences on the sentences imposed at other action numbers on the within action numbers.

 

L.C.C.C.P. Nos. CP-38-CR-0001518-2018 and CP-38-CR-0001608-2018, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, August 10, 2020.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:        NO. CP-38-CR-1518-2018

Plaintiff                                                      :        NO. CP-38-CR-1608-2018

  1. :                 

                                                                   :

JOUSEPH LOPEZ-SANTOS                     :

Defendant                                                  :

                                                                           

 

ORDER OF THE COURT

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2020, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Post-Conviction Relief Petition, after review of the file, and in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Order of this Court is as follows:

  1. The Defendant’s request for time credit is not supported by the parties’ factual stipulation or the law. It will therefore be rejected.  Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for Post-Conviction Relief is DENIED.
  2. The Defendant is advised that he has thirty (30) days from today’s date in which to file an appeal of this decision with Pennsylvania’s Superior Court.
  3. A copy of this Order is to be provided to the District Attorney of Lebanon County, to the Defendant’s attorney and to the Defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested.

 

THE COURT:

 

 

___________________________, J

BRADFORD H. CHARLES                 

 

 

BHC/gb

 

cc:     Court Administration

District Attorney’s Office (M. Ryland-Tanner, Esq.)

Andrew Morrow, Esquire// 522 South Eighth Street, Lebanon, PA 17042

Jouseph Lopez-Santos QD-5709// SCI Camp Hill, PO Box 8837, 2500 Lisburn Rd., Camp Hill PA 17001 (by cert mail, ret rect req)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC ACTION – FAMILY DIVISION

 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:        NO. CP-38-CR-1518-2018

Plaintiff                                                      :        NO. CP-38-CR-1608-2018

  1. :                 

                                                                   :

JOUSEPH LOPEZ-SANTOS                     :

Defendant                                                  :

                                                                           

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Megan Ryland-Tanner, Esq.                   FOR Commonwealth

 

Andrew Morrow, Esq.                               FOR Jouseph Lopez-Santos

 

 

Opinion, Charles, J., August XX, 2020

 

This case highlights the peril of committing multiple crimes at separate times within different jurisdictions.  When a person becomes a frequent flyer in our criminal justice system, there is a very real risk that he will become confused by his sentences, or by the timing of his incarcerations.  Such confusion may have occurred in this case.  But the DEFENDANT’s confusion is not a legal ground for this Court to retroactively reward what is essentially a “volume discount” on all of his offenses.  For reasons we will articulate below, the DEFENDANT is not entitled to retroactive time credit via his PCRA claim for relief.

 

 

 

  1. FACTS

 

On August 20, 2018, a Complaint was filed against Jouseph Lopez-Santos (Hereinafter DEFENDANT) alleging charges of Indecent Assault Person Less than Thirteen Years of Age, Corruption of Minors, Indecent Assault Person Unconscious, and Intimidation of a Person to Refrain from Reporting. On August 31, 2018, DEFENDANT was incarcerated at the Lebanon County Correctional Facility on these charges and received monetary bail on this case, which eventually became action number CP-38-CR-1518-2018, in the amount of $25,000.00.

On September 19, 2018, DEFENDANT was charged with Criminal Attempt-Aggravated Indecent Assault of Child, Indecent Assault Person Less Than 13 Years of Age, and Indecent Assault on an Unconscious Person. On September 20, 2018, DEFENDANT received monetary bail in the amount of $70,000 on this case, which eventually became CP-38-CR-1608-2018.

On September 23, 2019, the DEFENDANT entered a guilty plea on Docket 1518-2018.  One day later, a bench trial was conducted in action number 1608-2019. The DEFENDANT was found guilty on all charges lodged against him.

On December 11, 2019, sentencing was held and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of eighteen (18) months to five years (5) on both aforementioned action numbers. DEFENDANT’s sentence was to be made effective on December 11, 2019. During sentencing, the court noted that it did not intend to afford DEFENDANT with any credit for any time spent in the Lebanon County Correctional Facility as a result of prior probation and parole violation sentences.

On March 5, 2020, DEFENDANT filed a PCRA Petition seeking time credit on the above captioned cases. On March 18, 2020, the court ordered the parties to provide a list of all matters for which the DEFENDANT was incarcerated and the dates of his incarceration on each case between August 31, 2018 and December 10, 2019.

On May 13, 2020, the parties submitted an agreed upon letter to the court summarizing the matters and dates for which DEFENDANT was incarcerated between August 31, 2018 and December 10, 2019. The matters are as follows:

  • Parole violation – Docket 1041-2016 Defendant’s sentence ran from September 5, 2018 until May 29, 2019.
  • Parole violation – Docket 1380-2016 Defendant’s sentence ran from September 5, 2018 until December 28, 2019.
  • Probation violation – Docket 1263-2017 Defendant’s sentence ran from August 31, 2018 until August 30, 2019.
  • Parole violation – Docket 269-2017 Defendant’s sentence ran from September 5, 2018 until March 4, 2020.
  • Parole violation – Docket 576-2017 Defendant’s sentence ran from September 5, 2018 until June 3, 2020.

 

  1. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5), once a parolee is recommitted as a convicted parole violator, the original sentence and any new sentence must be served consecutively rather than concurrently. Furthermore, a sentencing judge has no authority to order otherwise. Commonwealth v. Draper, 222 Pa.Super.26, 293 A.2d 614, 615 (1972).

Pennsylvania’s Prison and Parole Code requires that convicted parole violators serve the back-time on their original state sentence before they can begin to serve time on a newly imposed state sentence. See, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(5); Wilson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 124 A.3d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Therefore, the Board may not impose back-time to run concurrently with a new sentence for an offense committed while on parole. Harris v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 393 A.2d 510 (1978).

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision. Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251, 1252 (Pa.Super.2008).

If a defendant is being held in custody solely because of a detainer lodged by the Board and has otherwise met the requirements for bail on the new charges, the time spent in custody shall be credited against his original sentence. However, if a defendant remains incarcerated prior to trial because he has failed to satisfy bail requirements on the new criminal charges, then the time spent in custody shall be credited to his new sentence. Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 488 Pa. 397, 412 A.2d 568 (1980).[1]

Lastly, Section 9760(4) makes it clear that time credit on a sentence may be granted only when it has not already been credited toward another sentence. Neither Section 9760 nor any other provision of the Code permits a defendant to receive credit against more than one sentence imposed for multiple convictions of separate and unrelated charges.

 

 

  • ANALYSIS

We confess to some confusion about the nature of the DEFENDANT’s argument.  Although the DEFENDANT has stipulated that he was in jail on other dockets through June 3, 2020, he argues that the time spent in prison since May of 2019 should be credited to this docket.  Moreover, he makes this argument despite language in our Sentencing Order that specifically required that his sentence be served consecutively to his other dockets.

It took several readings of the DEFENDANT’s brief before we could discern his position.  As we understand it, the DEFENDANT now suggests that his sentences on Dockets 1041-2016, 1380-2016, 1263-2017, 269-2017 and 576-2017 should all be recalculated to end as of the expiration of his minimum sentences.  Doing so would have the effect of rendering all post-minimum time applicable to the case now before this Court because the DEFENDANT never posted bail on it.

While superficially appealing, the DEFENDANT’s argument has no legal merit.  Had the DEFENDANT actually been paroled on his other dockets, then he might have had a legitimate claim for credit pre-dating June 3, 2020.  Unfortunately for the DEFENDANT, he was not paroled on those dockets.[2]  According to the parties’ stipulation, he remained in prison on his other dockets until June 3, 2020.  As unambiguously outlined in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6138, a convicted parole violator is required to serve his originally imposed sentence prior to serving any new sentence.

There is no constitutional, statutory or common law right to automatic release from custody upon expiration of a minimum sentence requirement.  See, e.g. ­­­­Rogers v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999); Rummings v. COM., 814 A.2d 795) Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).  The expiration of a minimum sentence obligation simply designates the time at which the defendant may be eligible for parole.  Once the defendant’s minimum sentence has been served in prison, either the Court or the Pennsylvania Board of Parole determines whether the defendant is eligible for release on supervision.  In some cases, it is appropriate for a defendant to remain in custody beyond the expiration of his minimum sentence.  Until permission for release is granted, the defendant must remain in a prison.  Contrary to the DEFENDANT’s position, he is not automatically entitled to release at the expiration of his minimum sentence.

Because the premise of the DEFENDANT’s argument is mistaken, so is his conclusion.  We therefore reject the DEFENDANT’s argument that he should receive credit on the docket now before this Court because the minimum sentences on his other dockets have expired.  Because the DEFENDANT is not entitled to such credit, his PCRA claim must be denied.

 

[1] In Gaito, our Supreme Court also noted in a footnote, “It is clear, of course, if a parolee is not convicted, or if no new sentence is imposed for that conviction on the new charge, the pre-trial custody must be applied to the parolee’s original sentence. Id. at 404.

 

[2] We do not know why the DEFENDANT was not paroled.  It could be that he committed misconducts in prison.  It could be that he did not have a viable home plan.  It could be that he simply did not apply for parole.  The reason for the DEFENDANT’s failure to parole is not important; the fact that he remained in prison on those earlier dockets is.

About the author

Ben has written 966 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal

Search