Court Opinion

ID: 9700510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:33:25.289092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:10.030133
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) met its burden of proving that John Taylor’s (Taylor) parole revocation hearing was timely. In so holding, the majority concludes that the Board’s delay in obtaining official verification of Taylor’s conviction, in the form of a computer printout, was reasonable due to the unavailability of the court file. (Majority op. at 120.) Because the Board could have obtained a computer printout of Taylor’s conviction at any time, I cannot agree that the unavailability of the court file justifies the Board’s delay in obtaining official verification of the conviction.
On May 22, 2003, Taylor was released on parole from a sentence for burglary. (C.R. at 14.) On May 19, 2004, Taylor was arrested for burglary and related offenses. Taylor was convicted on June 14, 2005, and was sentenced on August 23, 2005. The Board received official verification of the conviction on September 27, 2005, and held a parole revocation hearing on December 14, 2005. (C.R. at 21-22, 26.)
On March 6, 2006, the Board issued a decision to recommit Taylor as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve fifteen months backtime. (C.R. at 29.) Taylor filed a petition for administrative relief, arguing that the December 14, 2005, hearing was untimely. (C.R. at 33-34.) On May 15, 2006, the Board issued a decision, stating that the December 14, 2005, hearing was timely because it was held only seventy-eight days after receipt of official verification of the conviction on September 27,2005. (C.R. at 36.)
Taylor petitioned this court for review. The Board filed an application for remand, asserting that the December 14, 2005, *121hearing “was inadvertently not recorded.” (C.R. at 87.) This court granted the application on July 5, 2006, stating in a per curiam order that the Board “shall conduct a new hearing and issue a new decision within 90 days of the entry of this order.” (C.R. at 37.)
The Board held a new hearing on August 2, 2006. (C.R. at 39.) At the hearing, Taylor objected that the December 14, 2005, hearing was untimely. In making this argument, Taylor asserted that his parole agent submitted a request for proof of conviction to the Board on July 13, 2005, but the Board waited more than two months, until September 27, 2005, to obtain official verification. (C.R. at 43, 68.) Taylor offered as evidence a parole agent’s memo, dated September 27, 2005, showing that the Board received a request to obtain proof of Taylor’s conviction on July 13, 2005. The memo stated, “Due to the Court’s backlog for processing dispositions, the Court file is unavailable. Therefore, in lieu of the trial sheets, I have forwarded to you the Court’s computerized record of the disposition, authenticated by the Court’s seal.” (C.R. at 68.) Taylor argued that the Board could have obtained a computer printout with the court’s seal in July. (C.R. at 52-53.) In other words, Taylor did not believe that the unavailability of the court file justified the delay. The hearing examiner disagreed and overruled Taylor’s timeliness objection.
On August 22, 2006, the Board issued a new decision to recommit Taylor as a CPV to serve fifteen months backtime. Taylor filed a petition for administrative relief, and, on October 12, 2006, the Board issued a decision affirming its August 22, 2006, decision. Taylor petitions this court for review, arguing that the Board failed to meet its burden of proving that the delay in obtaining official verification of Taylor’s conviction was not unreasonable and unjustifiable. I agree.
The Board has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the timeliness of a parole revocation hearing. Fitzhugh v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 123, 623 A.2d 376 (1993). A revocation hearing shall be held within 120 days from the date the Board receives official verification of a conviction. Id. If there is a delay between the time when the Board has notice of the conviction and the time when the Board receives official verification of the conviction, the Board has the burden of proving that the delay was not unreasonable and unjustifiable. Id.
Here, the Board argued that the delay in obtaining official verification of Taylor’s conviction was not unreasonable and unjustifiable because the court file was not available. However, the unavailability of the court file did not prevent the Board from obtaining official verification of Taylor’s conviction on September 27, 2005. Therefore, the unavailability of the court file did not justify the delay. Moreover, absent evidence relating to the Board’s official verification procedures or the usual amount of time it takes the Board to obtain official verification of a conviction, I cannot conclude that the two-and-a-half-month delay in this case was reasonable.
Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would reverse.
Judge COLINS joins in this dissent.