timely revocation hearing in Pennsylvania

2025Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 ; Fitzhugh, 623 A.2d at 377 .

2024Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 ; Fitzhugh, 623 A.2d at 377 .

2025Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 ; Fitzhugh, 623 A.2d at 377 .

2024Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 ; Fitzhugh, 623 A.2d at 377 .

2019Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 931 A.2d 114, 116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 690 (Pa. 2008).

2009Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 931 A.2d 114, 116 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 750 , 946 A.2d 690 (2008).

2025Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 247 A.3d 1002 , 1003 n.2 (Pa. 2021) (brackets added). 20 Importantly, however, the Board admits that Iwanicki did not receive a detention hearing, but claims that “despite this error, Iwanicki is not entitled to the remedy [Iwanicki] seeks [i.e.,] [a]n order . . . for immediate release” because “despite the absence of a detention hearing, an offender who is given a timely revocation hearing may not be entitled to remedial action.” (Id. at 15 (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1978)).) On this point, citing a string of cases from this Court, includ

2025Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 247 A.3d 1002 , 1003 n.2 (Pa. 2021) (brackets added). 20 Importantly, however, the Board admits that Iwanicki did not receive a detention hearing, but claims that “despite this error, Iwanicki is not entitled to the remedy [Iwanicki] seeks [i.e.,] [a]n order . . . for immediate release” because “despite the absence of a detention hearing, an offender who is given a timely revocation hearing may not be entitled to remedial action.” (Id. at 15 (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1978)).) On this point, citing a string of cases from this Court, includ

2025Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 247 A.3d 1002 , 1003 n.2 (Pa. 2021) (brackets added). 20 Importantly, however, the Board admits that Iwanicki did not receive a detention hearing, but claims that “despite this error, Iwanicki is not entitled to the remedy [Iwanicki] seeks [i.e.,] [a]n order . . . for immediate release” because “despite the absence of a detention hearing, an offender who is given a timely revocation hearing may not be entitled to remedial action.” (Id. at 15 (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1978)).) On this point, citing a string of cases from this Court, includ

2024The mother relied on In re Adoption of J.A.S., supra, to support her argument that the filing of - 37 - a timely revocation petition triggers an inquiry into the validity of a consent, and the father’s failure to file a timely revocation precluded his challenge to the validity of his consent.

2023Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25-26 . 7 and intelligently waive his right to a revocation hearing and to counsel present at that hearing; (2) the Board did not afford Parolee a timely revocation hearing within 120 days of his new conviction; (3) the Board erred in denying Parolee credit for the time spent at liberty on parole; and (4) the Board erred when it refused to run Parolee’s backtime concurrently with his New Jersey sentence in violation of the separation of powers.

2021McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 , 1094 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §704. 4 As noted above, Gorko waived his right to a revocation hearing. 4 factual claims.

2019Counsel, observing that the Board conducted a timely revocation hearing and, citing Brown v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 456 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), concluded that there was no legal support for such an argument.

2018Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 , 1122 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 4 With regard to his first argument, Petitioner states that the record is incomplete as to whether he has the ability to speak English and seeks a remand for an evidentiary hearing, noting that he “claimed in his Petition for Administrative Relief and Petition for Review that Spanish is his first language.” (Petitioner’s brief at 12.) Petitioner states that his alleged limited proficiency in English made it impossible for him to make a

2011Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). 3 .When a parolee alleges that the Board failed to hold a revocation hearing within the 120-day time period required under 37 Pa.Code § 71.4, the Board bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a timely revocation hearing was indeed held.

2006Dennis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 110 Pa.Cmwlth. 517 , 532 A.2d 1230 (1987).

2006Dennis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 110 Pa.Cmwlth. 517 , 532 A.2d 1230 (1987).

2001Id.

1999Pa. R.A.P. 1513(a); Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 476 , 573 A.2d 628 , 629 n. 1, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 649 , 581 A.2d 575 (1990).

1999Pa. R.A.P. 1513(a); Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 476 , 573 A.2d 628 , 629 n. 1, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 649 , 581 A.2d 575 (1990).

1990Rambeau v. Rundle, 455 Pa. 8 , 314 A.2d 842 (1973), the revocation hearing shall be held within 120 days of the official verification of the return of the parolee to a State correctional facility. *601 This regulation is based upon the well-established principle that the 120-day period does not begin to run until the Board acquires jurisdiction over the parolee. 1 “When a parolee alleges that the [Bjo&rd held a revocation hearing beyond the 120-day period ..., the [Bjoard bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a timely revocation hearing was held.” Saunders v. Pe

1990Rambeau v. Rundle, 455 Pa. 8 , 314 A.2d 842 (1973), the revocation hearing shall be held within 120 days of the official verification of the return of the parolee to a State correctional facility. *601 This regulation is based upon the well-established principle that the 120-day period does not begin to run until the Board acquires jurisdiction over the parolee. 1 “When a parolee alleges that the [Bjo&rd held a revocation hearing beyond the 120-day period ..., the [Bjoard bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a timely revocation hearing was held.” Saunders v. Pe

1990Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 344, 561 A.2d 866 (1989). *615 Saunders contends that the cases of Abbruzzese v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 415, 524 A.2d 1049 (1987) and Capers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 42 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 356, 400 A.2d 922 (1979) control our disposition of this case.

1990Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 344, 561 A.2d 866 (1989). *615 Saunders contends that the cases of Abbruzzese v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 415, 524 A.2d 1049 (1987) and Capers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 42 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 356, 400 A.2d 922 (1979) control our disposition of this case.

1990Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 344, 561 A.2d 866 (1989). *615 Saunders contends that the cases of Abbruzzese v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 415, 524 A.2d 1049 (1987) and Capers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 42 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 356, 400 A.2d 922 (1979) control our disposition of this case.