IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamarr Sistrunk, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, : No. 723 C.D. 2016

Respondent : Submitted: November 4, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: November 30, 2016

Lamarr Sistrunk (Sistrunk) petitions pro se for review from a decision 

of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) dismissing his 

application for administrative relief as untimely. We affirm.

On February 2, 2010, the Board granted Sistrunk conditional parole 

and he was paroled to Keystone Correctional Services, Inc. on August 2, 2010. 

Subsequently, Sistrunk was arrested by the York City Police Department on July 1, 

2011, and detained in the York County Prison on two counts of manufacture, 

delivery or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver crack cocaine and 

possession of marijuana. The Board issued its detainer against him that same day.
2

On July 7, 2011, the Board issued Sistrunk a notice of charges and 

hearing, and Sistrunk waived his right to a detention hearing and right to counsel. 

By Board decision recorded on August 18, 2011, Sistrunk was detained pending 

disposition of his new criminal charges. On April 13, 2012, Sistrunk was found 

guilty of two counts of manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to 

manufacture or deliver crack cocaine and was sentenced to five to ten year’s

confinement.

On July 10, 2012, Sistrunk again waived his right to a revocation 

hearing before the Board and his right to counsel and admitted he was convicted of 

the above criminal charges. By decision dated August 8, 2012,1the Board 

recommitted Sistrunk as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve 18 months 

backtime when available. The Board then sent Sistrunk notice that the unserved 

balance of his original sentence was 1,516 days (or 4 years, 1 month and 24 days),

and that his recalculated parole violation maximum date was October 1, 2016. On 

October 12, 2012, the Board issued a decision2confirming its action dated August 

8, 2012, confirming Sistrunk’s parole violation maximum date of October 1, 2016, 

and listing his reparole eligibility date as February 7, 2014. Both the August 8, 

2012 and October 12, 2012 notices of the Board’s decisions contained the 

following statement:

 

1 Notice of the Board’s August 8, 2012 decision was mailed to Sistrunk at the York 

County Prison on August 9, 2012.

2 Notice of the Board’s October 12, 2012 decision was mailed to Sistrunk at the State 

Correctional Institution at Camp Hill on October 19, 2012.
3

IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, YOU 

MUST FILE A REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF WITH THE BOARD WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

OF THIS ORDER. THIS REQUEST SHALL SET 

FORTH SPECIFICALLY THE FACTUAL AND 

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATIONS. SEE 37 

PA CODE SEC. 73. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN 

ATTORNEY IN THIS APPEAL AND IN ANY 

SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO THE 

COMMONWEALTH COURT.

(Certified Record at 96, 97.)

Sistrunk was constructively paroled to his detainer sentence on 

February 19, 2014, and began serving time on his new conviction. His minimum 

release date for his new conviction is March 13, 2017, and his maximum release 

date is January 13, 2023.

On March 19, 2016, the Board received correspondence from Sistrunk 

contesting the Board’s October 19, 2012 decision to recommit him as a CPV, 

almost three-and-a-half years after the decision was issued. The Board dismissed 

this application for administrative relief as untimely filed. This appeal followed.3

Pursuant to the Board’s regulations, a parolee must appeal a decision 

revoking his or her parole within 30 days of the mailing date of the Board’s order 

 

3 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether constitutional rights 

have been violated. Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1093 

n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation omitted).
4

or the appeal will be dismissed as untimely. 37 Pa. Code § 73.1(b)(1); see also 

Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2013); Cadogan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 541 

A.2d 832, 833 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). The 30-day time period is jurisdictional and 

cannot be extended absent a showing of fraud or a breakdown in the administrative 

process sufficient to warrant nunc pro tunc relief. Smith, 81 A.3d at 1094 (citing 

Moore v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 503 A.2d 1099, 1101 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1986)).

Here, Sistrunk admittedly did not file an administrative appeal with 

the Board within 30 days of its decisions mailed on August 9, 2012, and October 

19, 2012, respectively. Sistrunk does not argue that he failed to receive proper 

notice and there is nothing in the record indicating that notice was not properly 

sent. Both notices of the Board’s decisions contain clear language indicating that 

Sistrunk must file his appeal within 30 days. In addition, Sistrunk’s brief to this 

Court fails to allege fraud or a breakdown in the administrative process, let alone 

make the general assertion that his appeal should be permitted nunc pro tunc. At 

no point does he explain the more than three-year delay in filing. He merely 

argues, for the first time on appeal, that the legality of an underlying sentence may 

be raised at any time. This argument is without merit and, moreover, has been 

waived as it was not raised before the Board in Sistrunk’s administrative appeal. 

See Newsome v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 553 A.2d 1050, 

1052 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (citing Section 703(a) of the Administrative Agency 

Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 703(a)).
5

Because his appeal was not submitted within 30 days of the Board’s 

revocation order, we discern no error in the Board’s dismissal of Sistrunk’s

administrative appeal as untimely.

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.4

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

 

4

Sistrunk argues in his brief to this Court that the Board does not have the authority to 

alter the maximum release date of “his judicially imposed sentence” and that the Board

improperly calculated his reparole eligibility date. (Petitioner’s Brief at 2.) Because of the 

manner in which we resolve this matter, we do not reach these issues.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamarr Sistrunk, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and :

Parole, :

Respondent : No. 723 C.D. 2016

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the decision of the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the above-captioned matter is 

affirmed.

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge