IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Wilhelm, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 602 C.D. 2021

: SUBMITTED: December 30, 2021

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge1

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: February 1, 2022

Petitioner Michael Wilhelm (Wilhelm) petitions for review of Respondent 

Pennsylvania Parole Board’s (Board) April 29, 2021 ruling, through which the 

Board affirmed its January 14, 2020 decision to recommit Wilhelm as a technical 

parole violator (TPV). We affirm.

I. Background

On September 14, 2015, Wilhelm was sentenced by the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County to an aggregate period of incarceration of three years, 

seven months to nine years in state prison, after Wilhelm’s probation was revoked 

regarding two burglary charges and one charge of possession of an instrument of 

crime. Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-2. Wilhelm was given credit for time served in 

presentence detainment and was subsequently paroled by the Board on November 

14, 2016. Id. at 2-8. At the time of his parole, the maximum date on Wilhelm’s 2015 

sentence was April 3, 2022. Id. at 8.

1 This matter was assigned to the panel before January 3, 2022, when President Judge 

Emerita Leavitt became a senior judge on the Court.
2

Wilhelm repeatedly violated the terms of his parole over the next several 

years, with most of these violations due to his abuse of illicit substances. See id. at 

17-23, 40, 45-47, 60-61. As a result, the Board twice recommitted Wilhelm as a 

TPV, once on September 6, 2017, and once on January 23, 2019. Id. at 21-23, 45-

47. Wilhelm was paroled from his second TPV recommitment on September 19, 

2019, at which point he was transferred to the Johnstown Community Corrections 

Center (Johnstown CCC).

2

Id. at 48-54. On November 10, 2019, Wilhelm declined

to provide Johnstown CCC staffers with a urine sample. He was sent to his room as 

a result, and later admitted to the staffers that he had used benzodiazepine and 

methamphetamine. Id. at 62; see also id. at 108-09. As a result, Wilhelm was 

removed from the Johnstown CCC and the Board issued a warrant to commit and 

detain him on November 12, 2019. Id. at 55-56. That same day, Wilhelm also signed 

two documents: the first document is titled “Notice of Charges and Hearing” and 

contains the following, detailed description of the technical parole violations with 

which he had been charged: 

You are charged with the following:

Technical Parole Violations:

Condition #5(A)[:] Use [and/or] possession of controlled 

substance: you shall abstain from the unlawful possession 

or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from 

the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The

2

“Community corrections center” is statutorily defined as “[a] residential program that is 

supervised and operated by the [D]epartment [of Corrections] in accordance with [Chapter 50 of 

the Prisons and Parole Code].” 61 Pa. C.S. § 5001. Per the Department of Corrections’ 

administrative regulations, a “community corrections center” is a “minimum-security communityoriented facility operated or contracted by the Department for the purpose of facilitating special 

programs.” 37 Pa. Code § 91.1. In addition, the Department of Corrections’ administrative 

regulations also explain that “[c]ommunity corrections centers are residences in the community 

with custodial structure and strong emphasis on guidance and counseling. These centers serve 

those inmates who qualify and who should benefit from a gradual reintegration into society.” 37 

Pa. Code § 94.2.
3

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device[] and Cosmetic Act[, 

Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended, 35 P.S. §§

780-101-780-144].

Supporting evidence: On 11/12/2019 you admitted to 

Agent Eckenrod[, Wilhelm’s assigned parole agent, that] 

you had used methamphetamine and benzodiazepine’s

[sic] on 11/10/2019.

Condition #7: You shall comply with the special 

conditions imposed by the Board and with special 

conditions imposed by the parole supervision staff

Field imposed special condition: On 09/20/2019 you were 

issued a field imposed special condition stating that you 

must comply with all rules, regulations and 

recommendations of the Johnstown [CCC] program.

Failure to successfully complete the [Johnstown] CCC 

program is a violation of your parole conditions.

Supporting evidence: On 11/12/2019 you were 

unsuc[c]essfully discharged from the Johnstown CCC for 

refusing to provide a urine [sample] on 11/10/[20]19 and 

continued poor adjustment. You failed to successfully 

complete the Johnstown CCC program.

Id. at 56. Wilhelm signed his name directly beneath this description. Id. The second 

document is a waiver form, through which he gave up his right to preliminary and 

parole violation hearings before the Board, as well as to counsel at those hearings, 

and admitted to two technical violations of his parole terms. Id. at 57-58. 

Specifically, these technical violations were “#5(A) Use of Controlled Substances –

Methamphetamine and Benzodiazepine” and “#7 Field Imposed Conditions –

Unsuccessful Discharge Johnstown CCC Program.” Id. at 57-58. This form contains 

two typewritten statements in separate places on its second page. Id. at 58. The first 

reads as follows:

I have been advised of my rights to a preliminary hearing, 

a violation hearing and counsel at those hearings. I have 

also been advised that there is no penalty for requesting 

counsel, that free counsel is available if I cannot afford to 

retain counsel, and the name and address of the local 
4

public defender. With full knowledge and understanding 

of these rights, I hereby waive my right to a preliminary 

hearing, a violation hearing and counsel at those hearings. 

I waive these rights of my own free will, without any 

promise, threat or coercion.

Id. at 58. The second states that “I knowingly, voluntarily and willingly admit to the 

violation(s) listed above. I understand and agree that this admission is binding and 

may only be withdrawn if I submit a written withdrawal to my supervising agent, 

within ten (10) calendar days of the date written above.” Id. Wilhelm signed his 

name directly beneath each of these statements. Id.3

On January 14, 2020, the Board issued a decision through which it 

recommitted Wilhelm as a TPV for the aforementioned parole violations and ordered 

that he serve 12 months of backtime as a result. Id. at 83-85. Through this decision, 

the Board also directed that Wilhelm would be automatically paroled on November 

12, 2020, unless he committed certain kinds of misconduct during the intervening 

time period, spent more than 90 days in restricted housing as a result of disciplinary 

infractions, or refused to complete mandated programming or work assignments. Id.

at 84. On January 31, 2020, Wilhelm mailed an administrative remedies form to the 

Board, challenging the Board’s January 14, 2020 decision on the following bases:

he was never informed that he only had 10 days to rescind the signed waiver form; 

he was unaware of the specifics of the parole violations with which he had been 

charged until after he had signed the form; he had not received a copy of the forms 

he had signed until after that deadline had passed; and he had not refused to give a 

urine sample while at Johnstown CCC. Id. at 107-12. Notably, Wilhelm admitted 

therein to the illicit drug use with which he had been charged, and stated that he had 

signed the waiver form while under the impression that he was “being violated for 

3 Wilhelm also signed the two-page waiver form in one other spot: on the first page, 

underneath the section titled “Offender Rights at Board Hearing[.]” See C.R. at 56.
5

refusing to give the [urine] sample[,]” but had “[done] so without really reading [the 

form] word for word[.]” Id. at 109. 

On September 9, 2020, Wilhelm’s eligibility for automatic parole was 

rescinded, due to two prison misconducts he had received prior to that point. See id.

at 86-89. On January 11, 2021, the Board formally modified its January 14, 2020 

decision, by deleting the automatic parole provision and directing that Wilhelm be 

paroled no sooner than February 17, 2021, “upon condition that there are no further 

misconducts of any kind.” Id. at 92-93.

On April 29, 2021, the Board issued a ruling that affirmed the January 14, 

2020 decision (as modified). Id. at 116-17. Therein, the Board explained that 

[t]he waiver/admission form [Wilhelm] signed

specifically indicates that [he] chose to [sign the form] of 

[his] own free will, without promise, threat or coercion and 

that [he] did so with full knowledge and understanding of 

[his] rights. This document also gave [him] ten calendar 

days to withdraw the admission. There is no indication that

[he] withdrew the waiver/admission within that grace 

period. These facts reflect that [his] waiver/admission was 

knowing and voluntary. Therefore, the Board had 

sufficient evidence to revoke [his] parole based on the

waiver/admission.

Id. at 116. This appeal to our Court followed shortly thereafter.

II. Discussion4

Wilhelm challenges the Board’s April 29, 2021 decision on a single ground,5

namely, that he did not waive his right to Board hearings or admit to committing the 

4

“Our scope of review over actions of the Board is limited to determining whether the 

decision was supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law occurred[,] or whether 

constitutional rights were violated.” Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 954 A.2d 107, 109 n.1 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

5 Confusingly, Wilhelm also attempts to use his brief to attack another Board parole 

revocation action, i.e., a ruling issued by the Board on October 23, 2020, which pertains to another 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
6

aforementioned technical parole violations in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary 

manner, because the Board failed to provide him with sufficient information prior to

him signing the waiver form, in violation of 37 Pa. Code § 71.2.

6 Wilhelm’s Br. at 

30-33.7

We firmly disagree with Wilhelm. 

In order to effectuate a knowing and voluntary waiver in . 

. . Board cases, all that is required is for the Board to show 

that it followed its own regulations and provided the 

necessary information to the offender prior to the offender 

signing the written waiver form. See Roblyer v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, . . . 609 A.2d 884 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1992) 

(waiver of counsel); Wile, Pennsylvania Law of Probation 

administrative remedies form that Wilhelm had mailed on February 12, 2019. C.R. at 94-95, 100-

01. Through that form, Wilhelm challenged the Board’s January 23, 2019 decision, in which it had 

resolved Wilhelm’s second instance of technical parole violations by recommitting him as a TPV

to serve 9 months of backtime. See id. at 45-47, 94-95. To state the obvious, the Board’s October 

23, 2020 ruling is entirely separate from its April 29, 2021 ruling and is not part of the appeal that 

is currently before us. Therefore, we need not further address this portion of Wilhelm’s appellate 

argument.

6 The Board, at 37 Pa. Code § 71.2, details the procedures it must 

follow when charging a parolee with technical parole violations. 

This regulation also explains the parolee’s due process rights during 

the revocation process, which include the right to counsel during the 

revocation proceeding; the right to a preliminary hearing to 

determine whether probable cause exists to believe the parolee 

committed a parole violation; and the right to a violation hearing to 

determine, based on the evidence presented, whether the parole 

violation occurred.

Prebella v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 942 A.2d 257, 260 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

7 The Board asserts that Wilhelm has waived this issue, because he did not raise it in his 

Petition for Review. Board’s Br. at 6. In doing so, the Board ignores the fact that, per the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the omission of an issue from the statement [of 

objections in a petition for review] shall not be the basis for a finding of waiver if the court is able 

to address the issue based on the certified record.” Pa. R.A.P. 1513(d)(5). Given that Wilhelm 

effectively raised this issue through his January 31, 2020 administrative remedies form, we 

conclude it has not been waived and will address it on the merits.
7

and Parole § 13.25 (2d ed. 2003). The waiver need not be 

effectuated in an “on the record colloquy.” See Coades v. 

Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, . . . 480 A.2d 1298, 1305 ([Pa.

Cmwlth.] 1984) (waiver of counsel). Rather, . . . execution 

of the Board’s form is sufficient. See also Hill v. Pa. Bd. 

of Prob. & Parole, . . . 492 A.2d 80 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1985) 

(waiver of counsel).

Prebella, 942 A.2d at 261. Wilhelm attempts to distinguish his situation by 

maintaining that his waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, because 

he did not have time to read the form before signing it[,] . 

. . was not aware of the ten-day limitation on the period 

within which he could withdraw his waiver/admission[, 

and] did not receive a document bearing the details of the 

alleged violations until approximately two months after 

signing the document, when the withdrawal period had 

already expired.

Wilhelm’s Br. at 30. Wilhelm also argues that he

would not have admitted to a violation asserting that he 

had refused to provide a urine sample, as he indicates that 

he did provide a urine sample, but was not able to do so 

during the time period allotted. The Bureau of Community 

Corrections Resident Infraction Report does note that 

[Wilhelm] “self admits [to illicit substance use] during a

urinalysis.” [C.]R. [at] 68. As such, [Wilhelm] asserts that 

the allegations made relative to his violations include an 

untrue statement or misstatement of fact[, of which] he 

was not aware . . . when he signed the waiver/admission 

as the only statement on that form relative to Johnstown 

CCC was that he had been unsuccessfully discharged. 

Id. at 30-31. Essentially, Wilhelm maintains that he “was not given sufficient notice

under [37 Pa. Code §] 71.2(11)[,

8 because] the violation[s listed in the waiver form 

8 Section 71.2(11) reads as follows:

Before the violation hearing the parolee or counsel shall be notified 

of the following:

(i) The charges, specifying the conditions of parole violated 

and setting forth the circumstances of the violations.

(Footnote continued on next page...)
8

were] not specific as to the facts alleged relative to the alleged refused urine sample.”

Wilhelm’s Br. at 32.

There are a number of readily apparent problems with Wilhelm’s reasoning.

First, between the Notice of Charges and Hearing and the waiver form, the Board 

provided Wilhelm with a wealth of detailed information regarding the precise 

technical parole violations with which he was being charged, the rights he was giving 

up by foregoing hearings and admitting to the veracity of those charges, and the 

deadline for rescinding his waiver. Second, the Board recommitted Wilhelm as a 

TPV not only because he had refused to provide a sample for urinalysis, but also 

because, by his own admission, he would have been unable to pass that test due to 

his use of illicit substances. Third, Wilhelm admitted in his administrative remedies 

form that he had signed the waiver form while under the impression that he was 

“being violated for refusing to give the [urine] sample.” C.R. at 109. Fourth, 

Wilhelm expressly stated in his administrative remedies form that he had not fully 

grasped the particulars of what he was admitting and waiving because he signed the 

waiver form “without really reading it word for word,” id., not because he did not 

have enough time to read that form. Finally, “[i]t was only after [his] opportunity [to 

(ii) The date set for the hearing and of the right to be heard 

by a panel.

(iii) The right to speak, to have witnesses appear and to 

present documentary evidence.

(iv) The right to cross-examine an adverse witness who 

appears at the hearing, unless the panel or examiner 

specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation.

(v) The right to representation by counsel at the hearing, the 

right to free counsel, if the parolee is unable to afford to 

retain counsel, and the name and address of the public 

defender.

(vi) That there is no penalty for requesting counsel.

37 Pa. Code § 71.2(11).
9

have Board hearings] passed and he was disappointed in the result that he sought to 

raise new facts contrary to those he previously put in the record. Essentially, he 

[sought] to impeach himself and to obtain a different disposition[.]” Prebella, 942 

A.2d at 262. In short, there is nothing in the record that provides legal justification 

for overturning the Board’s April 29, 2021 ruling. The Board fulfilled its 

responsibility to properly inform Wilhelm of the parole violation charges he faced 

and of the rights he was agreeing to waive. Finally, substantial evidence in the record 

supports the Board’s determination that Wilhelm signed the waiver form in a 

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner.

III. Conclusion

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing analysis, we affirm the Board’s 

April 29, 2021 ruling.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Wilhelm, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 602 C.D. 2021

:

Pennsylvania Parole Board, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1

st day of February, 2022, Respondent Pennsylvania Parole 

Board’s April 29, 2021 ruling, through which it affirmed its January 14, 2020 

decision to recommit Petitioner Michael Wilhelm as a technical parole violator, is 

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge