Chesson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 177
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioner Chesson, also known as Tyrone White, seeks review of the Board’s February 18, 2011 order denying administrative appeal and recommitting him as a convicted parole violator (CPV).
- Petitioner was paroled on January 7, 2008 from a Robbery-related sentence, with a parole violation maximum date of September 5, 2011.
- On October 16, 2009, Petitioner was arrested for aggravated/simple assault and recklessly endangering another person; Board issued a warrant to commit and detain.
On June 23, 2010, the Board held a revocation hearing; Petitioner argued the 2010 conviction was not by a court of record and thus not a CPV.
- On October 7, 2010, the Board recommitted Petitioner as CPV and recalculated the violation date to June 14, 2013; Petitioner appealed alleging due process/equal protection issues and improper categorization.
- This Court reversed and remanded, addressing waiver concerns and the core issue: whether the Municipal Court conviction for a summary offense is a court of record for CPV purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Municipal Court conviction for a summary offense is a court of record. | Chesson argued the Municipal Court judge sat as a magisterial district judge, so the conviction is not a court of record. | Board treated the Municipal Court conviction as a court of record under applicable rules. | Municipal Court conviction for a summary offense is not a court of record; CPV recommitment improper. |
| Whether Petitioner waived the equal protection and amended-petition arguments. | Waiver did not bar the arguments because they were encompassed in the petition for review. | Waiver applied due to late amendment and failure to timely raise issues. | Equal protection and amendment arguments waived; these issues deemed waived. |
| Whether the Board erred by affirming CPV based on a non-record conviction. | Conviction was not by a court of record, so CPV status was improper. | Board properly classified the conviction under relevant statutes and case law. | Board erred; remand to determine CPV status consistent with the court’s interpretation. |
| Scope of review and standards applied by the Court. | Chesson contends constitutional rights were violated and standard of review supports reversal. | Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards. | Court applied appropriate scope of review, reversing and remanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barna v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 8 A.3d 370 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (summary-offense convictions before MDJ not court of record for CPV)
- Goodwine v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 960 A.2d 184 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (MDJ siting as magisterial district judge not a court of record)
- Jackson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 951 A.2d 1238 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (summary offenses before MDJ not court of record)
- Edwards v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 3 A.3d 690 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (amendment of petition beyond permitted period waives issues)
- Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 729 A.2d 1254 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (issues not addressed or developed in brief are waived)
- Domagalski v. Szilli, 812 A.2d 747 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (single-judge order binding when no reconsideration petition filed)