Court Opinion

ID: 9368272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 16:09:20.677827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.617909
License: Public Domain

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
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charges were withdrawn by the Commonwealth.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

                                           2
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,

                                          3
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
                            2
              On appeal, 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).

                                                4
              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

                                           5
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.

                                           6
            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 3rd day of February, 2023, the Order of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board mailed August 13, 2021 is hereby AFFIRMED.