Source: https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/037/chapter71/s71.4.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 00:09:58
Document Index: 383706628

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71', '§ 71']

037 Pa. Code § 71.4. Conviction for a new criminal offense.
Parole revocation hearing shall be held within 120 days of the official verification of the return of the parolee to a state correctional facility or, when the record contains no verification, the 120-day period begins to run on the date the Board could have obtained official verification. Unreasonable and unjustifiable delays which are not attributable to the parolee or the parolee’s counsel do not toll the running of the 120 days. Williams v. Board of Probation and Parole, 579 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990); appeal denied 618 A.2d 405 (Pa. 1992).
An off the record statement by a hearing examiner that the petitioner was aware that his continuance request included the handwritten words ‘‘including sentencing,’’ which would have extended the 120 day limit, was not sufficient evidence to carry the Parole Board’s burden of proof. Dennis v. Board of Probation and Parole, 532 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
The parole revocation hearing must be held within 120 days of the date the Board receives official verification of a parolee’s conviction and not 120 days from the date of conviction. James v. Board of Probation and Parole, 530 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
The terms ‘‘revocation hearing’’ and ‘‘violation hearing’’ have acquired specific meanings in the context of parole, thus the defendant’s request for a ‘‘continuance of his violation/revocation hearing’’ related to both hearings and the delay caused by request for continuances will not be considered in determining timeliness of above-described hearings. Tarrant v. Board of Probation and Parole, 521 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); appeal denied 535 A.2d 84 (Pa. 1987).
The 120-day period for holding a full board hearing did not begin with date of parolee’s conviction in New York, but with the date he was returned to a Pennsylvania facility. Davis v. Board of Probation and Parole, 498 A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985); appeal denied 531 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 1987).
Where a petitioner does not waive his right to a full Board Hearing, the 120 days in which the Board has to give a convicted violator a hearing, paragraph (2), does not commence until petitioner’s return to a State Correction Institution. Chancey v. Board of Probation and Parole, 477 A.2d 22 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
A Board revocation hearing is timely where it is held within 120 days of receipt of notification of the guilty plea or verdict of guilt, or 120 days of official verification of the parolee’s return to a state correctional facility such 120-day period to be computed exclusive of time when the parolee is out of the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction, under paragraph (2)(i). Toth v. Board of Probation and Parole, 470 A.2d 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
If a parolee is confined in a county correctional institution, the 120-day period in which a parole revocation hearing must be held begins to run when the Board receives official verification of the parolee’s transfer to a state correctional facility rather than from the date of the Board’s reception of official verification of the parolee’s guilty plea. Perry v. Board of Probation and Parole, 398 A.2d 739 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Because the Board lodged the detainer, filed the parole violation charge and held the revocation hearing well beyond 120 days after the parolee’s return to State correctional institution, the parole violation charge must be dismissed with prejudice. It is well established that unreasonable and unjustifiable delay, which is not attributable to the parolee or parolee’s counsel, does not toll the running of the 120-day period. McDonald v. Board of Probation and Parole, 673 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Where a parolee’s right to a revocation hearing within 120 days was waived by his request for a continuance pending disposition of all criminal charges, the burden is not on the Board to keep track of when this event occurred. Williams v. Board of Probation and Parole, 561 A.2d 866, 867 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); appeal denied 575 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1990).
Section 71.4(2) providing that a full board hearing will be held within 120 days of official verification of the Board of the admission of a parolee from a county correctional institution to a state correctional facility does not violate a parolee’s right to a hearing within a reasonable period of time, does not violate equal protection and is not unconstitutionally vague. Andrews v. Board of Probation and Parole, 510 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
The 120 day rule requires that a violation/revocation hearing not be held more than 120 days from the date of the Board’s receipt of official verification of the guilty verdict handed down. Dennis v. Board of Probation and Parole, 532 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Revocation hearing was timely, since delay beyond statutory period was attributable to parolee’s request for a continuance. Pierce v. Board of Probation and Parole, 525 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
This section requires the Board of Parole and Probation to hold a hearing within 120 days of the date on which it receives official verification of parolee’s conviction for parole violation, and fact that defendant’s attorney know of his conviction previously to the Board’s receipt of verification does not render the hearing untimely. Tarrant v. Board of Probation and Parole, 521 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); appeal denied 535 A.2d 84 (Pa. 1987).
Where parolee, who had been arrested for new crime, requested a continuance of his violation and revocation hearing ‘‘pending disposition of criminal charges and sentencing, if convicted,’’ the 120 day period for hearing began when the Board received verification of sentencing, not with the date the continuance was requested. Robinson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 503 A.2d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); appeal after remand 520 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where Petitioner had requested and been granted a continuance of his parole revocation hearing, his contention on appeal that the 120-day rule of paragraph (2) had been violated was ‘‘wholly frivolous’’; appointed counsel was granted leave to withdraw and the Board of Probation and Parole’s denial of administrative relief was affirmed. Craig v. Board of Probation and Parole, 502 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Where a parolee is sent a notice captioned ‘‘Revocation Hearing—New Conviction’’ and makes an appearance for the hearing within the time prescribed in 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(1), and where the parolee then requests continuance of the hearing until such time as he is prepared to proceed, and the hearing is then held on the same day petitioner notifies the Board that he is prepared, the Board is excused from meeting the time constraints of 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(1). Nicastro v. Board of Probation and Parole, 455 A.2d. 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); appeal denied 530 A.2d 869 (Pa. 1987).
The Board may delay a full revocation hearing until after sentencing in response to a parolee’s oral request for a continuance, especially since the parolee was not prejudiced by the delay. Blair v. Board of Probation and Parole, 408 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979); appeal after remand 454 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); appeal after remand 467 A.2d 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); cert. denied 466 U. S. 977 (1984).
The Board must afford a convicted parole violator a final parole revocation hearing within a reasonable time after guilt is established and when there is a nine month delay between conviction and sentencing on the new criminal charges, the practice of delaying the final parole revocation hearing until after sentencing violates a parolee’s due process rights. United States ex rel. Burgess v. Lindsey, 395 F. Supp. 404 (E. D. Pa. 1975).
The Parole Board’s regulations require that an unrepresented, indigent parolee facing a revocation hearing must be supplied with the address of the local public defender to whom he may apply for representation prior to the hearing. O’Hara v. Board of Probation and Parole, 487 A.2d 90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Board could not take administrative notice of timeliness of revocation hearing where document necessary to establish date of verification of conviction was not time-stamped by Board; thus, Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and Board failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that hearing was timely. Abbruzzese v. Board of Probation and Parole, 524 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where a violator’s recommitment is based upon both his municipal court and common pleas convictions and the revocation hearing was not held within 120 days of the date the Board received notice as to one of those convictions, the court will not assume that either conviction would have been independently sufficient in the Board’s judgment to recommit the violator for the remainder of his unexpired term. Davis v. Board of Probation and Parole, 481 A.2d 714 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Where a parolee is confined in a county institution, the 120-day time limit does not begin to run for purposes of parole revocation until the Board receives official verification of the parolee’s transfer to a State correctional facility. McMahon v. Board of Probation and Parole, 559 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
When a parolee is confined in a county correctional institution, the Board acquires jurisdiction over him when a waiver of his right to a full Board revocation hearing is executed, and a hearing held within 120 days of the date of the waiver is timely. D’Nicuola v. Board of Probation and Parole, 467 A.2d 1383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
After being detained and revoked, the parolee was temporarily transferred to the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia to plead guilty to Federal charges. The parolee’s temporary transfer to the Federal detention center did not constitute confinement outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. Morgan v. Board of Probation and Parole, 814 A.2d 300 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Because a parolee confined outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections is clearly not ‘‘available’’ to begin serving backtime for the original offense, any new sentence a parolee is ordered to serve at an institution different from that which he or she was paroled from must precede backtime. Griffin v. Department of Correction, 862 A.2d 152, 155 N. 4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
Since the parolee was being held in a county institution at the time of his full-board hearing, the Board had no jurisdiction over him and did not violate his rights in ordering him recommitted as a convicted parole violator ‘‘when available’’ and in setting no date for reparole reconsideration. Rothman v. Jacobs, 392 A.2d 903 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
For the purpose of determining whether defendant’s revocation hearing was timely, criminal arrest and disposition report could not be considered when determining the date on which the Board of Probation and Parole received official verification of defendant’s guilty plea where the report was never entered into the record at the hearing. Johnson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 890 A.2d 45, 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
The Board’s failure to send counsel of record a copy of a recommitment order constituted negligence by the Board and the parolee’s attorney’s submission of a request for administrative relief 34 days after the order was issued was excused. Calcagni v. Board of Probation and Parole, 582 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
As long as the Board follows its regulations regarding informing the parolee of the right to counsel, provides the parolee with a form PBPP 340 containing the written notice of the right to counsel as well as the name and address of the applicable public defender, and documents the waiver of counsel by a Form PBPP 72 at the time of the hearing which becomes part of the record, the parolee’s waiver of counsel will be deemed informed and voluntary and given effect. Coades v. Board of Probation and Parole, 480 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
An order by the Board, dated March 19, 1981, computing backtime and fixing the time for reparole as a result of a hearing held on September 3, 1975, did not violate any of the parolee’s rights under 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(9). Brown v. Board of Probation and Parole, 456 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Although the Board failed to follow the requirements of 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(9) (relating to conviction for a new criminal offense) in that notice of the Board’s decision was not sent until some months after the decision was made, the petitioner was not prejudiced, since his failure to receive notice was due to his unauthorized absence from the detention facility where notice was actually sent. Grady v. Jeffes, 401 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
The 120-day time period for the Board of Probation and Parole to conduct a parole revocation hearing began to run from the date the board received the court history detailing defendant’s conviction; the court history constituted the ‘‘official’’ verification of defendant’s conviction which started the 120-day period, and the fact that the Board or parole agents had knowledge of defendant’s new conviction prior to the receipt of the official verification did not trigger the 120-day period. Taylor v. Board of Probation, 931 A.2d 114, 120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)
Revocation of parole hearing which resulted in decision to recommit parolee to serve backtime as a convicted parole violator was held in a timely manner by Board of Probation and Parole where hearing occurred within the 120 days from date Board received official verification parolee’s sentence. Reavis v. Board of Probation and Parole, 909 A.2d 28, 35—36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
Parolee’s due process rights were not violated where Board held full violation and revocation hearing while parolee was still incarcerated in county prison and before 120 day period, provided for in 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(2)(i), began to run. Inmon v. Board of Probation and Parole, 504 A.2d 373 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Section 71.4 requires that a final parole revocation hearing be held within 20 days of official verification of parolee’s guilty verdict. Taylor v. Board of Probation and Parole, 402 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
The revocation hearing must be held within the required time if the parolee is being confined in a county correctional facility solely as a result of the Board’s action and thus is being held exclusively under the Board’s jurisdiction. Dobson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 398 A.2d 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Two days’ notice over a weekend is inadequate notice to counsel of a parole revocation hearing and parolee’s waiver of counsel cannot be considered freely made where hearing examiner, knowing parolee desired prompt treatment for pre-AIDS syndrome and treatment was not available in parolee’s then present prison, explained the choice as between going ahead without counsel or postponing to a later unpredictable date. Murray v. Jacobs, 512 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
The Board must ensure that the parolee is aware of the right to counsel, however the Board’s counseling is not required to be done on the record and may be done by waiver of counsel form PBPP72. Coades v. Board of Probation and Parole, 480 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
The parolee’s revocation hearing was held within the 120-day limit; however, in preparation of the parolee’s appeal, the Board discovered that the tape of the hearing was blank, preventing the creation of a transcript. Upon petition and order of Commonwealth Court, a rehearing was held after the original 120-day period had expired. Under these circumstances, the hearing is deemed to be timely. Joyce v. Board of Probation and Parole, 811 A.2d 73 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
The Board of Probation and Parole’s acquisition of jurisdiction triggered the running of the 120 day period in which to conduct a probation revocation hearing. Because the period did not begin to run when the convicted parole violator was returned to the state facility, petitioner’s parole violation charges are dismissed. Mack v. Board of Probation and Parole, 654 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Evidence supported the Board of Probation and Parole’s position that petitioner’s parole revocation hearing was timely in that it was held 67 days after receipt of official verification of his conviction; parole agent testified when Board received official verification and the criminal arrest and disposition report indicated that official verification of petitioner’s conviction was received by the Board on that date. Eaton v. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 959 A.2d 477, 480 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Where it is alleged that the Board was aware of the conviction and the availability of the conviction records, but did not retrieve them, a remand was required to determine whether a 143 day period between a parolee’s conviction and the receipt of the conviction records by the Board rendered a parole revocation hearing untimely. Fitzhugh v. Board of Probation and Parole, 623 A.2d 376 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
A parolee whose combined violation and revocation hearing was untimely as to the technical violation charges under the provisions of 37 Pa. Code § 71.2(11) (relating to procedure for violation of parole conditions) was not prejudiced thereby, because the revocation component of the hearing was timely, due to the fact that the limitation period for criminal parole violations provided by 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(2)(i) had not begun to run on the date of the hearing due to the parolee’s interim county prison incarceration, and his original maximum sentence was extended solely because of criminal, not technical, parole violations. Hines v. Board of Probation and Parole, 420 A.2d 381 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Since the revocation hearing was held within 120 days of the parolee’s return to a state correctional facility from a penitentiary in another state, the hearing was timely. Auman v. Board of Probation and Parole, 394 A.2d 686 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
Since the final revocation hearing was held within 120 days of the parolee’s return to the state correctional facility from a federal penitentiary, the hearing was timely held. Harris v. Board of Probation and Parole, 393 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
The final revocation hearing for a parolee convicted of a new crime was held within a proper time after conviction where it was set for three months after conviction and was delayed for an additional two months because of the parolee’s request for a continuance. Washington v. Jacobs, 386 A.2d 631 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).