L. Sistrunk v. PBPP
723 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Sistrunk was paroled in 2010 and arrested on new drug charges in July 2011; the Board lodged a detainer and detained him pending disposition.
- In April 2012 Sistrunk was convicted and sentenced on the new charges; he later admitted the conviction to the Board and waived a revocation hearing and counsel.
- The Board recommitted Sistrunk as a convicted parole violator in decisions mailed August 9, 2012 and October 19, 2012, stating he had 1,516 days unserved and giving a recalculated parole-violation maximum date of October 1, 2016.
- Both Board notices warned that any administrative appeal had to be filed within 30 days of the order.
- Sistrunk waited until March 19, 2016 (over three years later) to contest the Board’s recommitment; the Board dismissed the application as untimely.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the 30-day filing requirement is jurisdictional and Sistrunk neither alleged lack of notice nor showed fraud or an administrative breakdown to warrant nunc pro tunc relief; his late argument about sentence legality was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sistrunk's administrative appeal was timely | Sistrunk challenged the Board’s recommitment (filed March 2016) | Board argued appeal was filed well beyond the 30-day limit stated in its orders | Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed (30-day rule applies jurisdictionally) |
| Whether equitable relief (nunc pro tunc) excuses late filing | Sistrunk did not assert fraud or administrative breakdown; argued sentence legality can be raised anytime | Board argued no showing of fraud or breakdown; strict 30-day rule applies absent such showing | No nunc pro tunc relief; Sistrunk failed to meet required showing; argument waived because not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 81 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (30-day appeal period is jurisdictional and cannot be extended except for fraud or administrative breakdown)
- Cadogan v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 541 A.2d 832 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (late administrative appeals are subject to dismissal)
- Moore v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 503 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (nunc pro tunc relief requires showing of fraud or a breakdown in the administrative process)
- Newsome v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 553 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (issues not raised administratively are waived on appeal)