timeliness of a revocation hearing in Pennsylvania

2026“When a parolee challenges the timeliness of a revocation hearing, the Board has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the hearing was, in fact, timely.” Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 . 5 In Brown, we considered the interplay of Section 6138(a)(5.1) of the Parole Code and the above regulations.

2025“If the Board does not present substantial evidence to establish the timeliness of a revocation hearing, the parole violation charges are dismissed with prejudice.” Id. [quoting Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 184 A.3d 1021, 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)]. 6 The Board’s regulations define “official verification” as “[a]ctual receipt by a parolee’s supervising parole agent of a direct written communication from a court in which a parolee was convicted of a new criminal charge attesting that the parolee was so convicted.” 37 Pa. Code § 61.1 . 7 It is undisputed that Carmichael did not waive his ri

2024In sum, “[t]he test for determining the timeliness of a revocation hearing held before the Board is whether, after subtracting the periods of time not 5 chargeable to the Board, the remaining time exceeds 120 days from either . . . the official verification of the new conviction or of the offender’s return to a state correctional institution.” Britton v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2101 C.D. 2014, filed March 14, 2016) (unreported),3 slip op. at 8-9 (quoting Koehler v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 935 A.2d 44, 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)).

2016Koehler v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 935 A.2d 44, 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2019“When a parolee challenges the timeliness of a revocation hearing, ‘the Board has the burden of proving . . . that the hearing was, in fact, timely.’” Fumea v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 147 A.3d 610, 614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Williams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 602 A.2d 434, 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)).

2016Analysis .When a parolee challenges the timeliness of a revocation hearing, “the Board has the burden of proving ,.. that the hearing was, in fact, timely.” Williams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 145 Pa.Cmwlth. 31 , 602 A.2d 434, 436 (1992).

2023Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 954 A.2d 107, 109 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (quotations omitted).

2023Id.

2019“When a parolee challenges the timeliness of a revocation hearing, ‘the Board has the burden of proving . . . that the hearing was, in fact, timely.’” Fumea v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 147 A.3d 610, 614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Williams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 602 A.2d 434, 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)).

2018Petitioner cites Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 147 A.3d 610 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), to argue that his revocation of parole should be dismissed because of the Board’s failure to hold a revocation hearing within 120 days from the date of Petitioner’s federal conviction.

2024Additionally, when the Board fails to produce evidence that it had the burden to produce, it “does not have the right to a second hearing to make the case it should have made in the first instance.” Gair v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 948 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); see also Mack v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 654 A.2d 129, 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (reversing the decision of the Board and dismissing the parole violation charges with prejudice because the revocation hearing was untimely).

2024Additionally, when the Board fails to produce evidence that it had the burden to produce, it “does not have the right to a second hearing to make the case it should have made in the first instance.” Gair v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 948 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); see also Mack v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 654 A.2d 129, 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (reversing the decision of the Board and dismissing the parole violation charges with prejudice because the revocation hearing was untimely).

2024Burno v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 67 A.3d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2020See supra n.4; see also Woodard v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 582 A.2d 1144, 1146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (holding that a recommitment order and recalculation order are separate final appealable orders and to challenge the timeliness of a revocation hearing, a timely appeal must be taken from the recommitment order).

2018Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 931 A.2d 114, 116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2017Notably, we previously held that the same form used in this case, Form 275C, constituted substantial evidence of the timeliness of a revocation hearing in Wiley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 967 A.2d 1060, 1063 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 2009).2 Likewise, we conclude, as we did in Wiley, that the Board met its burden proving the timeliness of the revocation hearing.

2016Vanderpool v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 874 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).