Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 528
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Ryan J. Smith was recommitted as a technical parole violator (TPV) by the Board; Decision mailed November 30, 2012 and required appeals within 30 days.
- Smith filed an inmate request (Dec. 18) asking how to seek administrative relief; institutional supervisor replied forms were in the law library (Dec. 21).
- Smith was in detox and administrative custody during the appeal period and alleges limited access to forms and assistance.
- Smith’s petition for administrative relief, filed via the Centre County Public Defender’s Office and postmarked January 7, 2013, was seven days late; he requested acceptance nunc pro tunc due to an alleged breakdown in the administrative process.
- The Board dismissed the petition as untimely; Smith appealed arguing the Board failed to notify him of the public defender’s contact/availability at no cost and failed to advise that seeking counsel would carry no repercussions.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Smith’s delay resulted from a breakdown in the administrative process or intervening third-party negligence and thus warrants nunc pro tunc relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board must accept late petition nunc pro tunc due to breakdown in administrative process | Smith: lack of specific notice (PD contact, free counsel, no penalty), supervisor’s law-library directions, and detention/incapacity prevented timely filing | Board: regulations do not require providing PD contact/extra appeal-stage info; delay allegations insufficient for nunc pro tunc | Remanded: Court held an evidentiary hearing is required to determine if facts show a breakdown or third-party negligence warranting nunc pro tunc relief |
| Whether being in administrative custody/detox excuses untimely filing | Smith: custody impeded access to forms and PD contact during appeal window | Board: filing could have been handwritten or via available means; not excused absent proof of breakdown | Court: factual questions (access, timing, diligence) require development at hearing before ruling |
| Whether supervisor’s instruction (law library) constituted adequate assistance | Smith: supervisor’s reply was inadequate and did not mention counsel availability | Board: supervisor’s direction was sufficient; no regulatory duty at appeal stage to give more | Court: adequacy of assistance is a question of fact for the hearing |
| Whether allegations meet Larkin standard to compel remand for hearing | Smith: parallels Larkin — administrative error/absence of PD contact caused delay | Board: Larkin does not apply because no showing of denial of required notices at hearing stage | Court: Larkin applies; remand for hearing to decide if Larkin-type breakdown occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Larkin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 555 A.2d 954 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (administrative breakdown or public defender error can justify nunc pro tunc relief and merits remand for hearing)
- Moore v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 503 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (appeal deadline jurisdictional; nunc pro tunc available for fraud or administrative breakdown)
- McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 631 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (affirming 30-day appeal requirement to challenge revocation)
- Bronson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 421 A.2d 1021 (Pa. 1980) (indigent parolees entitled to counsel at revocation hearings and in appeals)