Court Opinion

ID: 9412071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 19:08:05.131363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.775113
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                               MIDDLE DISTRICT

 HERMAN O. HELLAMS,                             :   No. 93 MAP 2022
                                                :
                     Appellant                  :   Appeal from the Order of the
                                                :   Commonwealth Court dated June 3,
                                                :   2022 at No. 584 MD 2020
              v.                                :
                                                :
                                                :
 PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION                :
 AND PAROLE,                                    :
                                                :
                     Appellee                   :

                                        ORDER

PER CURIAM
      AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2023, the June 3, 2022, Order granting

Preliminary Objections filed by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and

dismissing Appellant’s Petition for Mandamus is VACATED.

      Consistent throughout Appellant’s filings and his communications with Appellee

are his averments that he filed a timely administrative appeal by submitting an

Administrative Relief Form and accompanying letter on April 27, 2017, and that Appellee

has failed in its duty to act on that appeal.1 “Mandamus has been held to be the proper

remedy to compel the Board to conduct a required hearing or to correct a mistake in

applying the law.” Donnell v. Com., Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 434 A.2d 846, 846–47 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1981) (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Pa. Bd. of Parole, 398 A.2d 992

(Pa. 1979) (additional citation omitted)).   Appellee has not offered any response to

1 See 61 Pa.C.S. § 6113 (d).
Appellant’s averments before the Commonwealth Court or this Court. Accordingly, this

aspect of the issues raised in Appellant’s Petition for Mandamus is appropriately

addressed to the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction and the court erred in

concluding otherwise. Additionally, the Commonwealth Court erred in concluding, without

providing any supporting findings of fact or explanation, that Appellant’s administrative

appeal rights had lapsed. We REMAND the case for the court to conduct appropriate

further proceedings and/or fact finding to determine if Appellant is due relief. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

                                    [93 MAP 2022] - 2