timely detention hearing in Pennsylvania

2026Iwanicki v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 97 C.D. 2024, filed June 4, 2025), slip op. at 19-22, 2025 WL 1575777 , at *9-10 (unreported) (footnote omitted); see also Leese, 570 A.2d at 644 (stating that “an illegal detention does not, in and of itself, vitiate a subsequent recommitment” as long as the parolee is given “a full 11 opportunity at the revocation hearing to present any evidence and to cross-examine witnesses relative to violation[s]”); Whittington v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 404 A.2d 782, 783 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (stating that “the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in th

2025However, we held that “[n]evertheless, the fact remains that the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in the absence of a timely objection in no way affects the validity of a subsequent revocation hearing.” Id. (emphasis added).

2008See, e.g., Hobson, [ 556 A.2d at 918 ] (claim that hearing examiner was biased failed because parolee cannot complain of deficiency regarding hearing after hearing has been held); Donnelly, [ 457 A.2d at 146 ] (claim that detention hearing was untimely fails because parolee failed to raise claim prior to revocation hearing); Whittington, [ 404 A.2d at 783 ] (“the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in the absence of a timely objection in no way affects the validity of a subsequent revocation hearing”)....

2006Hobson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 38 , 556 A.2d 917, 918 (1989) (claim that hearing examiner was biased failed because parolee cannot complain of deficiency regarding hearing after hearing has been held); Donnelly v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 290 , 457 A.2d 145, 146 (1983) (claim that detention hearing was untimely fails because parolee failed to raise claim prior to revocation hearing); Whittington v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 58 , 404 A.2d 782, 783 (1979) (“the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in the absence of a timely objectio

2006Cf. Commonwealth v. Per *150 ry, 254 Pa.Super. 48 , 385 A.2d 518, 520 (1978) (“If before his parole or’probation is revoked a parolee or probationer has not complained of the lack of a Gagnon I [11] hearing, he has already suffered the harm that the omission allegedly caused; since the substance of the revocation proceeding is not affected by the omission, the parolee or probationer will not be heard to complain later.”). 12 Since the Board confínes itself to its DilUplaine-based argument, we need not and will not resolve whether appellee’s claim could be deemed waived under an independent wai

2006Cf. Commonwealth v. Per *150 ry, 254 Pa.Super. 48 , 385 A.2d 518, 520 (1978) (“If before his parole or’probation is revoked a parolee or probationer has not complained of the lack of a Gagnon I [11] hearing, he has already suffered the harm that the omission allegedly caused; since the substance of the revocation proceeding is not affected by the omission, the parolee or probationer will not be heard to complain later.”). 12 Since the Board confínes itself to its DilUplaine-based argument, we need not and will not resolve whether appellee’s claim could be deemed waived under an independent wai

2008See, e.g., Hobson, [ 556 A.2d at 918 ] (claim that hearing examiner was biased failed because parolee cannot complain of deficiency regarding hearing after hearing has been held); Donnelly, [ 457 A.2d at 146 ] (claim that detention hearing was untimely fails because parolee failed to raise claim prior to revocation hearing); Whittington, [ 404 A.2d at 783 ] (“the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in the absence of a timely objection in no way affects the validity of a subsequent revocation hearing”)....

2006Hobson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 38 , 556 A.2d 917, 918 (1989) (claim that hearing examiner was biased failed because parolee cannot complain of deficiency regarding hearing after hearing has been held); Donnelly v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 290 , 457 A.2d 145, 146 (1983) (claim that detention hearing was untimely fails because parolee failed to raise claim prior to revocation hearing); Whittington v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 58 , 404 A.2d 782, 783 (1979) (“the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in the absence of a timely objectio

2026Iwanicki v. Pa. Parole Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 97 C.D. 2024, filed June 4, 2025), slip op. at 19-22, 2025 WL 1575777 , at *9-10 (unreported) (footnote omitted); see also Leese, 570 A.2d at 644 (stating that “an illegal detention does not, in and of itself, vitiate a subsequent recommitment” as long as the parolee is given “a full 11 opportunity at the revocation hearing to present any evidence and to cross-examine witnesses relative to violation[s]”); Whittington v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 404 A.2d 782, 783 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (stating that “the failure to hold a timely detention hearing in th

2025For instance, “[e]ven if [the parolee] should have received a preliminary parole revocation hearing, the subsequent final parole revocation hearing makes the issue a wrong for which there is now no remedy.” Loach v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 57 A.3d 210, 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2015To address the Board’s failure to conduct a timely detention hearing, “[a] proceeding in mandamus is available to compel the Board . . . to conduct a hearing.” Bronson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 421 A.2d 1021, 1023 (Pa. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1050 (1981).

2015To address the Board’s failure to conduct a timely detention hearing, “[a] proceeding in mandamus is available to compel the Board . . . to conduct a hearing.” Bronson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 421 A.2d 1021, 1023 (Pa. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1050 (1981).