J. Hart v. PA BPP, J. Hart v. PA BPP

Hart was arrested in Nov. 2011 while on parole; DOC custody and parole detainers followed, and he faced separate criminal proceedings culminating in a Nov. 12, 2015 jury conviction for harassment and stalking.
The Board lodged a detainer Feb. 25, 2016, scheduled a revocation hearing for Mar. 15, 2016, which Hart continued to Apr. 5, 2016 to obtain counsel (continuance excludes time under 37 Pa. Code § 71.5(c)(2)).
At the Apr. 5, 2016 revocation hearing the Board introduced one State exhibit (S-1), a certified conviction copy that bore only the Nov. 12, 2015 print/conviction date; other Board forms in the certified record were not admitted at the hearing.
Hart argued the record lacked proof of when the Board actually received "official verification" of the conviction (defined as an actual direct written communication to a supervising agent), so the 120-day timing requirement for holding a revocation hearing under 37 Pa. Code § 71.4(1) was not met.
The Board later asserted official verification was received Feb. 19, 2016, but that date appeared only on an internal Board form (PBPP-257C) that was not admitted at the hearing.
The Commonwealth Court held the Board failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that official verification was received within time, reversed the Board order, and dismissed the parole-violation charges with prejudice.

Issue	Hart's Argument	Board's Argument	Held
Timeliness of revocation hearing (120-day rule)	Exhibit S-1 lacks a received date; only shows conviction/print date (Nov. 12, 2015); no admissible evidence proving Board received official verification within 120 days	Board claimed official verification was received Feb. 19, 2016, making the Mar. 15, 2016 hearing timely	Reversed: Board failed to prove receipt date by preponderance; internal form with Feb. 19 date was not admitted and cannot be relied on; charges dismissed
Admissibility/reliance on internal Board forms	Hart argued forms (e.g., PBPP-257C, PBPP-257H) were not admitted and cannot support necessary factual findings	Board relied on its files/forms to establish receipt and supervision facts	Held that Board may not take official notice of unadmitted file documents when they concern a necessary factual determination; reliance on PBPP-257C was improper
Allocation/credit for time served and other sentencing issues	Hart challenged allocation of custody time and denial of credit for time at liberty on parole	Board affirmed recommitment and time calculations	Court did not reach merits of these issues due to timeliness reversal (moot)
Right to present mitigating evidence	Hart contended he was denied opportunity to present mitigation at revocation hearing	Board proceeded with hearing admitting only Exhibit S-1	Court did not reach this issue because timeliness defect controlled (moot)

Johnson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 890 A.2d 45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (Board bears burden to prove hearing timeliness by preponderance)
Smalls v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 823 A.2d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (definition of preponderance and substantial-evidence standard)
Abbruzzese v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 524 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (remedy is dismissal with prejudice when Board fails to prove timeliness)
Sigafoos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 503 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (preponderance standard explanation)
Ramos v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 954 A.2d 107 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (referenced in proceedings; appellate authority on parole revocation issues)