IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher A. Tevis, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1029 C.D. 2021

 v. :

: Submitted: July 22, 2022

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

PER CURIAM FILED: February 3, 2023

Christopher A. Tevis (Tevis) petitions for review from the decision of the 

Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) mailed August 13, 2021, which denied his 

administrative appeal of a Board decision recommitting Tevis to a state correctional 

institution (SCI) to serve 30 months backtime as a convicted parole violator (CPV). 

Upon review, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 16, 2014, Tevis was sentenced to 5 to 10 years’ 

imprisonment for intimidation of a witness. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1.) Tevis’ 

sentence began on September 7, 2011, and his maximum sentence date was September 

7, 2021. (C.R. at 2.) On September 29, 2016, Tevis was paroled. (C.R. at 7-8.) 

On February 21, 2019, Tevis was arrested and charged with robbery, theft 

by unlawful taking, criminal mischief, and terroristic threats. (C.R. at 20-24, 106, 109.) 

Tevis failed to post bail on these new charges. (C.R. at 105-06.) On February 26, 

2019, the Board issued a warrant to commit and detain Tevis. (C.R. at 15.) On March 

4, 2019, the Board issued a Notice of Charges and Hearing, seeking to detain Tevis 
2

based upon his new charges. (C.R. at 16-17.) On March 22, 2019, the Board issued a 

decision detaining Tevis pending the disposition of his new charges. (C.R. at 26.) 

On October 7, 2019, Tevis pled guilty to one count of robbery and all other 

charges were withdrawn by the Commonwealth. (C.R. at 34-35, 114.) On November 

16, 2019, the Board issued a notice for a revocation hearing based on Tevis’ new 

conviction. (C.R. at 27.) Attorney Paul Verduci of the Chester County Public 

Defender’s Office (Attorney Verduci) entered his appearance for Tevis and waived a 

panel hearing. (C.R. at 29-30.) The Board scheduled Tevis’ revocation hearing for 

December 2, 2019. (C.R. at 59.) On November 25, 2019, Attorney Verduci requested 

a continuance for the revocation hearing until Tevis received his sentence on his 

robbery conviction. (C.R. at 58.) The Board rescheduled the revocation hearing for 

December 16, 2019. (C.R. at 59.) 

On December 13, 2019, Tevis was sentenced to one to three years’ 

imprisonment and a consecutive term of two years’ probation. (C.R. at 46, 109-110, 

114.) The trial court ordered Tevis to pay restitution, receive a mental health and drug 

and alcohol evaluation, and receive credit for time served from February 21, 2019 

through December 13, 2019. (C.R. at 46, 109.) On December 16, 2019, Attorney 

Verduci sought a second continuance of the revocation hearing to afford additional 

time to review the case with Tevis. (C.R. at 60.) The Board rescheduled the hearing 

for December 30, 2019. Id.

During the revocation hearing, Parole Agent Howard White offered a 

certified copy of the sentencing sheet of Tevis’ new conviction and Tevis’ guilty plea 

colloquy. (C.R. at 35-45, 46, 68.) Attorney Verduci did not object to these records 

and the hearing examiner admitted them into evidence. (C.R. at 69.) Attorney Verduci 

acknowledged the new conviction and noted that the sentence imposed for the new 

conviction fell within the mitigated range for robbery. (C.R. at 70-71.) Additionally, 

Attorney Verduci offered mitigating evidence regarding Tevis’ work history, prior 
3

citations, marijuana use, and mental health issues, including childhood trauma, 

dissociative episodes, and treatment. (C.R. at 71-88.) Parole Agent White testified 

regarding Tevis’ prior parole agent’s statements and interactions concerning Tevis’ 

marijuana use. (C.R. at 78.) Parole Agent White further testified that “there was a 

certain level of presence of mind” on the day of the robbery because Tevis “locked the 

main door to the store, questioned about the camera system, and then went to the store 

office and started disconnecting and dismantling the computer and camera systems.” 

(C.R. at 88.) Attorney Verduci did not object to Parole Agent White’s testimony. 

Thereafter, the hearing examiner closed the record. (C.R. at 89.) 

The Board issued an order to recommit, which identified September 29, 

2016, as the original parole date and September 7, 2021, as the original maximum date. 

(C.R. at 123.) At the time of his release on parole, Tevis had 1,804 days remaining on 

his sentence. Id. The Board noted that Tevis would receive credit from September 26, 

2016, to September 25, 2017, a period of 364 days, and his new maximum sentence 

date is December 17, 2023. Id. The Board issued a decision, mailed on May 22, 2020, 

explaining that Tevis was recommitted as a CPV to serve 30 months backtime for a 

“[c]onviction in a court of record established, new charges serious/assaultive, 

considered a threat to the safety of the community.” (C.R. at 125.) The Board stated

Tevis would be eligible for re-parole on July 7, 2022. Id. 

On June 12, 2020, Tevis through new counsel, Attorney Jessica Fiscus of 

the Erie County Public Defender’s Office, filed an administrative remedies form. (C.R. 

at 131.) On June 25, 2020, counsel submitted Tevis’ amended request for 

administrative relief, which incorporated all issues previously raised in the prior 

administrative remedies form, including additional mitigating factors. (C.R. at 132,
4

135-40.) On August 13, 2021, the Board issued a decision affirming its decision 

recorded on May 7, 2020.1 (C.R. at 172.) Thereafter, this appeal followed.

II. ISSUES

On appeal,2 Tevis asserts that he was denied due process when the Board 

considered the impermissible testimony and evidence from Parole Agent White. 

(Petitioner’s Br. at 18.) 

III. DISCUSSION

Tevis cites Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), and asserts that the 

Board denied him the most basic protections of due process because the hearing 

examiner “heard and ultimately considered impermissible testimony and received 

improper evidence on three occasions from Agent White.” (Petitioner’s Br. at 22.) 

Tevis notes that Morrissey mandates that he “have an opportunity to be heard and to 

show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances 

in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.” (Petitioner’s Br. 

at 20.) Tevis further cites Majors v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 808 

A.2d 296, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), and Grello v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & 

Parole, 477 A.2d 45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), and argues the Board erred because the 

“hearing examiner did not make a determination that the witness to those events was 

unavailable or that other good cause existed for his/her absence.” (Petitioner’s Br. at 

24.) 

1 We note that there are two typographical errors in the Board’s August 13, 2021 decision, in 

which the Board refers to Tevis as both “Mr. Trevis” and “Mr. Burkett.” (C.R. at 172) (emphasis 

added). 

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether the decision was in accordance with law, or whether the necessary findings of fact were 

supported by substantial evidence. Shaw v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 812 A.2d 769, 772 n.4

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). 
5

In Pennsylvania, the “rules of evidence are not strictly applicable in 

recommitment proceedings.” Majors, 808 A.2d at 298. “[D]ocumentary evidence and 

reports, including, but not limited to, depositions, written interrogatories, affidavits, 

laboratory reports, business records, public records, official records, and letters 

rotatory, may be utilized solely, if the panel or examiner is satisfied as to their 

authenticity, relevancy, accuracy, and reliability.” 37 Pa. Code §71.5(b). Additionally, 

both the Board’s regulations and the federal constitution require that a parolee be 

permitted to confront and cross-examine those upon whose statements the Board relies 

in revoking parole unless a specific finding of good cause for not allowing 

confrontation is made by the Board or its designee. See Morrissey; 37 Pa. Code

§71.2(11)(iv). Further, “[i]n parole violation hearings, where a witness is unavailable,

hearsay is admissible over the objection of the parolee’s counsel and can form the basis 

for finding a violation of a condition of parole when the Board finds good cause for 

denying the parolee his rights of confrontation and cross-examination.” Majors, 808 

A.2d at 298. Importantly, the right to confrontation and cross-examination can be 

waived if no objection is voiced to the introduction of hearsay evidence at a revocation 

hearing. Sinwell v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 406 A.2d 597, 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1979) (internal citations omitted). If no objection is voiced to the introduction of 

hearsay evidence at a revocation hearing, a parolee cannot later challenge its admission. 

Id. “Indeed, it is not the introduction of hearsay evidence at a revocation hearing which 

is error but the admission of hearsay over objection and without a finding of good 

cause.” Id. 

Our review of the record compels us to conclude that Tevis waived his 

right to confront and cross-examine because he did not object to the introduction of 

Parole Agent White’s testimony during the revocation hearing. In the administrative 
6

appeal process, Tevis and his counsel argue for the first time that Parole Agent White’s 

testimony was hearsay and was inadmissible. In his argument, Tevis offers no 

explanation as to why no objection to Parole Agent White’s testimony was made before 

the hearing examiner. Therefore, we conclude that Tevis has waived his right to 

confront and cross-examine, and thus, the Board did not deny Tevis his due process 

rights. 

Lastly, we must note that the cases Tevis relies on in his brief, Majors, 

808 A.2d 296, and Grello, 477 A.2d 45, are distinguishable because those cases involve 

parolees recommitted as technical parole violators whereas Tevis was recommitted 

as a CPV. This Court held previously that certified copies of a parolee’s convictions 

are sufficient, by themselves, to support the parolee’s recommitment as a CPV. 

Chapman v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 484 A.2d 413, 416 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). 

Here, a certified copy of Tevis’ sentencing sheet and his guilty plea colloquy were 

admitted into evidence without objection during the revocation hearing. (C.R. at 69.) 

Moreover, Tevis acknowledged his new conviction. (C.R. at 70.) Despite Tevis’ 

mitigation factors, the Board noted in its decision mailed May 22, 2020, that it relied 

on “[Tevis’] acknowledgement and the evidence presented at the hearing to support the 

recommitment term.” (C.R. at 171.) Therefore, Tevis’ certified sentencing sheet and 

guilty plea colloquy were sufficient to support the Board’s decision to recommit him 

as a CPV. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Board did not deny Tevis 

due process rights. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s August 13, 2021 Order.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher A. Tevis, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1029 C.D. 2021

 v. :

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of February, 2023, the Order of the 

Pennsylvania Parole Board mailed August 13, 2021 is hereby AFFIRMED.