Winklespecht, Pet v. PA Board of Probation & Parole (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-175-2001][M.O. - Eakin, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT WALTER WINKLESPECHT, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent : No. 57 MM 2001 : : Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus : : : : SUBMITTED: November 20, 2001 : : : : : : CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: DECEMBER 31, 2002 I concur in the result. I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor that the appropriate avenue of relief is a writ of mandamus, and I would dismiss the petition on that basis, without reaching the merits of the underlying issue.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.