Jason Davies v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sustained the Pennsylvania Parole Board’s preliminary objections and dismissed Jason Davies’s petition for a writ of mandamus with prejudice. The court held that applying 61 Pa.C.S. § 6139(a)(3.3), which requires triennial rather than annual parole consideration for certain offenses, did not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions. The court concluded that Davies failed to establish a clear legal right to mandamus relief.

Holdings

1. Applying section 6139(a)(3.3) to Davies was retroactive, but Davies failed to plead that the amendment disadvantaged him by imposing a new or greater punishment or creating a nonspeculative significant risk of prolonged incarceration. The amendment changes only the frequency of parole consideration, does not extend the sentence or alter parole-eligibility standards, and therefore does not violate the federal or Pennsylvania Ex Post Facto Clauses.
2. Davies failed to plead a legally sufficient mandamus claim because the absence of an ex post facto violation meant he lacked a clear legal right to immediate and annual parole review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether applying 61 Pa.C.S. § 6139(a)(3.3), which changes parole-review frequency for inmates convicted of certain offenses from annual to triennial review, violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
2. Whether Davies sufficiently pleaded a mandamus claim based on the Board's failure to consider his 2022 parole application.

Disposition

dismissed