panel hearing in Pennsylvania

2024Thus, on September 9, 2021, pursuant to Edwards, Evans was still in federal custody even though he was physically located in a county jail, and his September 7, 2021, waiver of a panel hearing “did not trigger the 120-day period under [Section] 71.4(1).” 751 A.2d at 719 ; see also Turner letter at 6. 4 Evans attached to his Petition for Review a copy of an inmate rights notification and waiver form signed by himself and a witness on August 24, 2021, and indicating that he waived his right to a panel hearing.

2016Edwards, 751 A.2d at 719 .

2025Rambeau v. Rundle, [] 314 A.2d 842 ([Pa.] 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. (ii) A parolee who is confined in a county correctional institution and who has waived the right to a revocation hearing by a panel in accordance with the Rambeau decision shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the [DOC] as of the date of the waiver. .... 37 Pa. Code § 71.4 (1)(i)-(ii). 3 The parole agent argued in response that, because Petitioner did not waive his right to a panel hearing, h

2025However, rather than finding that Petitioner was outside the jurisdiction of the Board, the panel instead reasoned that Petitioner was “unavailable” under 37 Pa. Code § 71.5 (c)(1):4 [I]f a parolee is returned to an SCI before a conviction and is then transferred by writ to a county or federal correctional institution, the hearing must be held within 120 days of the date official verification [of the conviction] is received (excluding any period he was not available)[.] Montgomery v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 808 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).] The record reflects that [Petitio

2021It further explained that “[t]here [was] no indication that [Petitioner] waived [his] right to a panel hearing prior to [Petitioner’s] return to” Pennsylvania custody and that “the Board has authority to recommit a reentrant for an offense that occurs while on parole regardless of when the detainer is lodged or when conviction occurs[,]” as “[t]he controlling factor is when the reentrant committed the offense.” (Id. at 96 (citing Section 6138(a)(2) of the Prisons and Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2),3 and Choice v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 357 A.2d 242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976)).) Finally, the

2021McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 , 1094 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 15 When the Parole Board revokes a parolee’s parole and orders him to serve backtime, there must first be a revocation hearing before either a panel of hearing examiners from the Parole Board or, in the alternative, by one hearing examiner if the parolee waives his right to have his case heard by the panel. 37 Pa. Code §71.2 (13).

2014The district attorney objected, stating that she believed the defense was intentionally excluding white venirepersons from the panel in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

2014Id.

2001We view this as an egregious breach of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and find that Petitioner has waived all grounds for appeal. 9 *89 We are also inclined to award attorney’s fees 10 and costs to the Board on the basis that Counsel has submitted a brief that is “dilatory, obdurate and vexatious,” as those terms are used in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2744. 11 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the assessment of attorney fees against court-appointed counsel in Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 524 Pa. 500 , 574 A.2d 558 (1990). 12 The Court,

2001We view this as an egregious breach of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and find that Petitioner has waived all grounds for appeal. 9 *89 We are also inclined to award attorney’s fees 10 and costs to the Board on the basis that Counsel has submitted a brief that is “dilatory, obdurate and vexatious,” as those terms are used in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2744. 11 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the assessment of attorney fees against court-appointed counsel in Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 524 Pa. 500 , 574 A.2d 558 (1990). 12 The Court,

2001We view this as an egregious breach of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and find that Petitioner has waived all grounds for appeal. 9 *89 We are also inclined to award attorney’s fees 10 and costs to the Board on the basis that Counsel has submitted a brief that is “dilatory, obdurate and vexatious,” as those terms are used in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2744. 11 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the assessment of attorney fees against court-appointed counsel in Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 524 Pa. 500 , 574 A.2d 558 (1990). 12 The Court,

2001We view this as an egregious breach of our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and find that Petitioner has waived all grounds for appeal. 9 *89 We are also inclined to award attorney’s fees 10 and costs to the Board on the basis that Counsel has submitted a brief that is “dilatory, obdurate and vexatious,” as those terms are used in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2744. 11 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the assessment of attorney fees against court-appointed counsel in Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 524 Pa. 500 , 574 A.2d 558 (1990). 12 The Court,