IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Murry Hull, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 1714 C.D. 2018

 : Submitted: May 17, 2019

Pennsylvania Board :

of Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: August 9, 2019

Murry Hull (Hull), pro se, petitions for review of a November 29, 2018 

Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that dismissed 

Hull’s request for administrative review as untimely. Hull filed his petition for 

administrative review on May 24, 2017, wherein he sought to challenge the 

Board’s decision, mailed June 14, 2016, that recalculated his maximum sentence 

date. Upon review of the certified record, we affirm. 

On March 26, 2013, Hull was released to a community corrections center

(CCC) on parole. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 7.) At the time of his parole, Hull

was serving a 7- to 14-year sentence, and his maximum sentence date was 

September 8, 2019. (Sentence Status Summary, C.R. at 1-2.) On July 8, 2013, the 
2

Board issued a Warrant to Commit and Detain. (Id. at 12.) Hull admitted to 

violating certain conditions of his parole, waived his right to counsel and hearings, 

and was recommitted as a technical parole violator (TPV) to serve six months. (Id.

at 13-15, 30.) On August 22, 2013, the Board issued an Order to Recommit. (Id.

at 27.) Hull’s maximum date remained unchanged. (Id. at 30, 36.) Hull was 

automatically reparoled on January 8, 2014. (Id. at 37.) Police filed new charges 

against Hull on October 9, 2014. (Id. at 44-49.) On October 30, 2014, the Board 

issued a Warrant to Commit and Detain. (Id. at 50.) Once again, Hull admitted to 

the parole violations and waived his right to counsel and hearings. (Id. at 51-52.) 

Hull ultimately pleaded guilty to a summary offense, but was recommitted as a 

TPV to serve six months on December 5, 2014. (Id. at 68-70, 78.) 

The Board automatically reparoled Hull on April 30, 2015. (Id. at 81.) The 

Board issued a Warrant to Commit and Detain Hull on May 20, 2015, as a result of 

new criminal charges being filed. (Id. at 86-87.) Bail on the new charges was set 

at $5000 on May 21, 2015, then increased to $10,000 on June 1, 2015, before 

being modified to $0 on July 14, 2015. (Id. at 93.) On March 7, 2016, Hull pled 

guilty and was sentenced to three to six months in a county jail, with credit for time 

served, for receiving stolen property. (Id. at 103-04.) He admitted to the 

conviction and waived his right to counsel and a revocation hearing. (Id. at 114.) 

On May 9, 2016, the Board issued its Order to Recommit Hull as a convicted 

parole violator (CPV). (Id. at 132.) The Board determined Hull forfeited 399 days 

and recalculated his maximum date as October 22, 2020. (Id.) A Notice of Board 

Decision dated May 9, 2016, and mailed June 14, 2016, advised Hull that he was 

being recommitted as a CPV to serve 12 months of backtime. (Id. at 146-47.) The 
3

decision further advised Hull that he had 30 days in which to appeal the decision. 

(Id. at 147.)

At this point, the parties’ rendition of events differs. Hull maintains he sent 

correspondence to the Board on June 30, 2016, and again on October 20, 2016, 

challenging the Board’s actions. The Board maintains the first correspondence it 

received from Hull was on May 30, 2017, which it treated as a request for 

administrative review. Based upon this filing, the Board dismissed his request as 

untimely, having been filed nearly a year after the Board’s June 14, 2016, decision. 

It did not reach the merits of the issues raised in Hull’s request, namely that the 

Board miscalculated the time credit Hull received and his maximum date. Hull

now petitions this Court for review. 

On appeal,1 Hull argues the Board should have treated his June 30, 2016, 

and October 20, 2016, correspondence, as an administrative appeal because it 

contained the requisite information. Had the Board done so, his challenge would 

be timely and the Court could review whether the Board miscalculated his credit 

for street time and his maximum date. As proof that he timely appealed, Hull has 

attempted on multiple occasions to introduce copies of the handwritten 

correspondence he alleges he mailed to the Board. Hull first filed an objection to 

the certified record and sought to expand the certified record to include copies of 

the June 30, 2016, and October 20, 2016 correspondence.2 Upon Hull’s objection, 

 

1 Our review in parole revocation cases “is limited to a determination of whether 

necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, [whether] an error of law was 

committed, or whether constitutional rights of the parolee were violated.” Johnson v. Pa. Bd. of 

Prob. & Parole, 706 A.2d 903, 904 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

2 Hull also sought to introduce a parole application dated September 29, 2017. The 

Board, in response to Hull’s objection, acknowledged receipt of the application but stated it did 

not include it in the certified record as it was irrelevant to this appeal. 
4

the Board searched its records and indicated that it found no evidence of either 

letter. By order dated March 25, 2019, this Court denied Hull’s request. Hull 

sought reconsideration of that order, which was denied on April 4, 2019. Despite 

prior orders excluding Hull’s request to supplement the record, Hull included 

copies of the correspondence in his reproduced record and cited to the 

correspondence throughout his brief. 

The Board does not argue the merits of Hull’s appeal, instead arguing that 

because Hull’s Request for Administrative Review was untimely filed, it properly 

dismissed that request. It maintains it did not receive the correspondence Hull 

allegedly sent on June 30, 2016, or October 20, 2016, and points out that Hull has 

not produced any evidence of mailing. Based upon the evidence of record, the 

Board argues the Court should affirm the Board’s Order finding the Request for 

Administrative Review untimely. 

The timeliness of a petition for administrative review is governed by Section 

73.1(b) of the Board’s regulations, which provides, in relevant part:

(1) A parolee, by counsel unless unrepresented, may petition for 

administrative review under this subsection of determinations relating 

to revocation decisions which are not otherwise appealable under 

subsection (a). Petitions for administrative review shall be received at 

the Board’s Central Office within 30 days of the mailing date of the 

Board’s determination. When a timely petition has been filed, the 

determination will not be deemed final for purposes of appeal to a 

court until the Board has mailed its response to the petition for 

administrative review. This subsection supersedes 1 Pa. Code 

§ 35.226.

. . . 
5

(3) Second or subsequent petitions for administrative review and 

petitions for administrative review which are out of time under this 

part will not be received.

. . . .

37 Pa. Code § 73.1(b)(1), (3).

“This time period is jurisdictional and cannot be extended absent a showing 

of fraud or a breakdown of the administrative process.” Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. 

& Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1094 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Failure to meet this deadline 

means the Board is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. McCaskill v. Pa. 

Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 631 A.2d 1092, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). Here, the Board 

action from which Hull sought the Board’s review was mailed June 14, 2016. 

Therefore, Hull had until July 14, 2016, to file a timely request for administrative 

review. The Board received Hull’s request for administrative review on May 30, 

2017, nearly a year past the 30-day deadline. 

To the extent Hull relies on the handwritten letter dated June 30, 2016, to 

support his claim that he timely sought review of the Board’s decision, we cannot 

agree. First and foremost, the alleged letter is not part of the certified record. “An 

appellate court is limited to considering only those facts that have been duly 

certified in the record on appeal.” B.K. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649, 657 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). “For purposes of appellate review, that which is not part of 

the certified record does not exist.” Id. “Documents attached to a brief as an 

appendix or reproduced record may not be considered by an appellate court when 

they are not part of the certified record.” Id. Moreover, Hull has not offered any 

evidence, such as a certificate of mailing or cash slip, evidencing the letters were in 

fact mailed, such that he may be entitled to nunc pro tunc relief. 
6

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the Board’s Order. 

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Murry Hull, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 1714 C.D. 2018

 : 

Pennsylvania Board :

of Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, August 9, 2019, the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation 

and Parole, entered in the above-captioned matter, is AFFIRMED. 

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge