Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

(1) thе sues, explained that: and Claimant because, supervision special needed

client wheelchair, was in

when the client around and was able to move

client was others; towards

aggressive supervision before not need such

client did for work at 7:00 a.m. arrived

Claimant bed, in a the client was

because (N.T. 8.) Inasmuch as the

wheelchair. supervision when he required special

client require and did not in a wheelchair bed, supervision when he was

special go he could reasonably believed

Claimant a.m., the client kitchen at 8:00 while

to the bed, to breakfast for the client.3 get

was in majority, I would

Accordingly, like

reverse. Clayton HUGHES, Petitioner

Connel BOARD

PENNSYLVANIA AND

OF PROBATION

PAROLE, Respondent. Pennsylvania. Court of 6,May on Briefs 2009.

Submitted

Decided June 2009. day of the rather than the client's cir- I also submit to the extent the work hours ignores requiring special cumstances, rule the reasons for the work is unreasonable. rule client, focusing solely on supervision of a Watkins, Clam, peti-

Kent D. Saint for tioner. Thomas,

Arthur R. and Asst. Counsel Madden, Counsel, S. Victoria Chief Harris- burg, respondent. for LEADBETTER, BEFORE: Prеsident McGINLEY, Judge, Judge, and and PELLEGRINI, Judge, and COHN JUBELIRER, SIMPSON, Judge, and LEAVITT, Judge, Judge, BUTLER, Judge. Judge

OPINION BY COHN JUBELIRER. Application

Before this Court is the for (Applica- Leave to Withdraw as Counsel tion) (Counsel) of Kent D. Watkins Clayton Connel Hughes (Hughes). Hughes filed a Petition (Petition) for Review of the determinations of the Board of Probation (Board) revoking Hughes’ pa- and Parole role and recalculating his sentence. August On Hughes was sen- following tenced to the five concurrent (1) years sentences: “six to five months deliver”; possession ... for with intent to (2) years eight possession two to for (3) deliver; years intent to one to two for (4) crime; possession of an instrument of year pos- six months to one for unlawful (5) drug paraphernalia; session of (Letter days possession marijuana. Clerk, alleged: Office of Chief that his maximum date from Counsel to calculated; correctly Commonwealth Court there had Letter) 2008) (No-Merit (October 6, at 1- not been a detention on the feder- 2.) 22, 1999, the Board issued an July On al charges prior of which he was convicted paroling Hughes ordеr as of November to his recommitment ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‍as a parole convicted 1999. violator, but on his state charges, (3) dismissed; which were and that the 4, 2000, the Board issued

On December hearing recommitment wherein he was de- declaring Hughes delinquent an order to a parole termined be convicted violator February of November 2000. On held until 10 months after his 2001, the Board issued an order recommit- was, guilty plea federal court and there- Hughes parole as a technical violator ting fore, untimely. Hughes brоadly also al- to serve 12 months of backtime for two leged ineffective assistance of counsel and per- the without “leaving counts of district process rights. denial of his due mission,” report,” two counts of “failure to comply and one count of “failure to with all 14, 2008, April On the Board issued (Board Order, 28, 2001, R. at laws.” Feb. modifying prior new order order of 11.) 17, 2002, On December the Board 31, 2008, January and recalculated recommitting Hughes issued an order as a Hughes’ August maximum date to be parole convictеd violator to serve 24 13, 2008, 2014. May On mailed backtime, available, months of when based response to Hughes’ Request for Admin- using on his conviction on two counts of “a Review, stating istrative that argu- his facility communication to distribute crack regarding ments defects in the Board’s (Board Order, 17, 2002, cocaine.” Dec. R. Hughes recommitment of aas convicted 12.) untimely, violator were and that 24, 2005, February On the Board re- such claims could not be revived Hughes, ceived a letter from which the subsequent Board’s recаlculation orders. petition Board construed as a for adminis- Regarding Hughes’ arguments as to the review, inquiring trative on the status of defects the Board’s recalculation order Hughes’ parole requesting and 31, 2008, January mailed the Board stated By from the Board. letter mailed March arguments that these were rendered moot 15, 2005, responded the Board that be- by the Board’s recalculation Hughes serving cause was still a federal April decision issued 2008. sentence he was not considered аvailable 12, 2008, On June Hughes, represented and, therefore, to serve his backtime Counsel, Hughes’ filed Petition in this yet Board had not recalculated his maxi- (1) arguing that: the Board’s order mum date. April improperly issued revoked 81, 2008, By January order issued Hughes’ parole; the Board failed to Board, referring to its December give Hughes solely credit for time served order recommitting Hughes as a technical warrant; under the Board’s and convicted violator to serve timely Board failed to hold a revocation backtime, months of recalculated hearing. 2, May maximum date as July February Hughes On On the Board fried a Mo- mailed to Application tion to Limit the Issue and Request the Board a for Administrative (Motion Limit). Stay In the Motion to challenging January Review the Board’s Limit, request, Hughes requested 2008 order. In this the Board that this Court designed protect indigent appeal to Re- crimi- “limit the issue on whether nal to effective correctly [Hughes’] defendant’s assistance spondent dismissed Sixth of a of counsel undеr the Amendment of pro se combined petition for admin- United States Constitution and to en- revocation decision separate attorney distinct sure istrative review of client, argue against re- is not untimely order as with forced recalculation presents reviewing court in- spect revocation and as but to the decision determining formation aid it in respect to the recalculation or- that will moot with 1.) (Motion By Limit at order whether the defendant’s is frivo- der.” Anders, 744-45, at granted this Court the lous. 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. July dated 8, 2008, 1396. On October Motion to Limit. Application with this

Counsel filed his applied This Court first in McClendon Court, his No-Merit Letter. along with petition the context of a for from a review determination of the Board Scott v. Ja addressing merits of Before the cobs, 100, 76 463 Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d 110 we review the Application, Counsel’s first (1983), but so without much explana- did steps appointed represent peti counsel Pennsylvania tion. In v. Craig Board of seeking review of determinations of tioners 586, Probation & 93 Pa.Cmwlth. the take to from Bоard must withdraw (1985), explained 758 representation. ap The for an standards applying rationale the An- plication from representation to withdraw requirements to counsel ders/McClendon in an a decision appeal from of the seeking representation to withdraw from grew of the standards for withdrawal out petitioners seeking of review of rev- from col appointed counsel direct and determinations, stating ocation doing appeals lateral of criminal сonvictions. In indigent peti- so balanced the interest of terpreting began a line of cases which tioners in effective assistance of counsel the Supreme deci United States Court’s against duty attorneys press the 788, California, sion in Anders v. 386 U.S. cases, recognized frivolous in case law and 1396, (1967), the S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 493 the Pennsylvania Respon- Code of Ethical Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Common sibility. Craig, 502 A.2d 760-61. This McClendon, 467, wealth v. 495 Pa. rationale the exhibits how standard for (1981), set out the modern stan repre- to withdraw from steps court-appointed dard for a attor the petitioner sentation of a deter- ney must take in order to mination right is connected the a criminal defendant in a petitioner of the to effective assistance of appeal. Supreme direct The Court stated counsel in that appeal. withdraw, attorney in order to (1) notify must: the court the defen ex rel. and Commonwealth Remeriez (1964), appeal wholly Maroney, dant that the of his belief 415 Pa. 204 A.2d 450 withdraw; of his intent to Supreme relying frivolous and provide the court on Wainwright, a brief to the defen Gideon v. and (1963), dant which includes in the S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 799 that a matter held arguably support record that could at which was sen “[t]he tenced to appeal; imprisonment defendant’s and advise the de after revocation of right prior probation” fendant to retain sentence and suspended of “his new counsel” McClendon, proceed “a in the pro stage ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‍proceeding se. 495 Pa. at was critical 470-72, against 434 A.2d at the accused” and that steps petition- 1186-87. These therefore, er, right prosecution parolees to effective assis- a criminal and that had Remeriez, of counsel. 415 Pa. constitution- tance not entitled to same Similarly, 204 A.2d at 450-51. guarantees safeguards al as is a Rhay, Mempa v. 389 U.S. S.Ct. criminal accused. 408 U.S. (1967), which dealt 19 L.Ed.2d 2593. The S.Ct. Rambeau Court was probation hearing,

with a revocation Morrissey aware of the decision but only held that Supreme United States Pomeroy Eagen Justices noted that requires “appoint- the Sixth Amendment cast a Morrissey grave doubt on the ... at indigent ment of counsel for an continuing validity resting parol- every of a criminal stage proceeding where Mempa Rhay. ee’s to counsel on rights substantial criminal accused Pomeroy, Justice concurring opin- may affected.” Id. at be S.Ct. ion, holding giv- noted that the Tinson Tinson, ing parolees an absolute to counsel 249 A.2d 549 Su- was not a matter of federal Court, relying Mempa on Rem- preme 24, constitutional law. 455 Pa. at 314 eriez, hearing held that а at which the J., (Pomeroy, A.2d at 850 concurring). prison was recommitted to however, Eagen, strongly Justice disa- parole technical violation of his also re- greed holding with the Court’s effective of quired assistance counsel. counsel was at all revocation “The recommitment determined hearings Supreme and read the Court’s appellant whether or not would be re- holding Morrissey holding in as counsel prison. ques- to There can turned be no not always constitutionally required is prоceeding tion that a at which a determi- hearings only revocation where the vio- nation of that kind was made was a ‘critical parole lation of is a new criminal convic- ” Tinson, 334, stage.’ 433 Pa. at [Rundle,] 26-28, tion. See 455 Pa. at at 552. In v. Coades J., (Eagen, 314 A.2d at 851-52 concur- 84 Pa.Cmwlth. ring dissenting). 480 A.2d 1298 suc- Court Shortly Supreme after our Court de- cinctly the right indigent discussed of an to Rambeau, cided the United States Su- parole counsel in hearings revocation preme Court handed down its in decision developed case law to Tin- [, in Gagnon Scarpelli son: U.S. (1973),] 36 L.Ed.2d 656 S.Ct. Supreme 1972 our reaffirm- Court Supreme where the addressed the Court in holding ed its Tinson its decision in precise concerning right issue the to ex rel. Rambeau counsel as the was before Rambeau [, (1973),] Rundle 314 A.2d 842 Gagnon Supreme Court. Court pre- and found counsel was crucial in expressly rejected the idea that a parol- circumstances, mitigating if senting ee existent, right has an absolute constitutional to were to the Board. Pa. at parole at a However, revo- prior Powell, hearing. cation Justice writing Supreme our decision in Court’s Ram- beau, recognized for the that there ex- Supreme the United States Court presence isted situations where handed down its decision in Morrissey [, counsel at parole hearings Brewer revocation S.Ct. (1972),] would be L.Ed.2d which the Su- both undesirable and unneces- preme specifically pa- sary. only whereby held that a The occasions proceeding part role revocation is not to counsel at revocation possible prudent It neither nor mag- constitutional is is of federal hearings attempt precise to formulate a and de- un- fundamental fairness nitude is where guidelines ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‍to be followed in tailed set clause of the Four- process der the due determining providing when the of coun- requires counsel. Amendment teenth necessary applicable is to meet the sel 1756. In cases 93 S.Ct. 411 U.S. The facts process requirements. due only viola- where petitioner’s such as preliminary and сircumstances charged is a new criminal tion hearings susceptible of almost final conviction, held coun- Gagnon variation, infinite and a considerable dis- constitutionally required is sel responsible cretion must be allowed the justification there is substantial where making Pre- agency decision. which would render revo- mitigation or sumptively, may it be said that counsel justi- and where the inappropriate cation where, provided in cases after should be mitigation fication and or oth- being informed of his develop present. or erwise difficult probationer parolee or (Emphasis Id. at 93 S.Ct. 1756 request, timely such a on a makes based added). (i) and colorable claim that he has not (footnote Coades, A.2d at 1302-03 alleged violation of the committed omitted). Coades, Court, in also de- This upon liberty; which he is at conditions process guarantees “the termined that due (ii) that, even if or the violation is Pennsylvania] constitution are under [the public matter of record is uncontest- by the Fed- greater no than those afforded ed, there are substantial reasons which eral Id. at 1305. This Constitution.” justified mitigated or the violation and a right parolee held that the of to Court inappropriate, that make revocation 6(a) in Section statutory, counsel is found are otherwise the reasons or as the Public commonly develop present. of the Act known difficult or Act,1 states, which Defender relevant 790, 93 1756. Gagnon, S.Ct. part: Notably, the cases discussed above deаlt parole, with revocation of not the recalcu-

(a) re- public The defender shall be by parole lation of a maximum date legal sponsible furnishing parole to a revocation. board cases, following types any per- of Turner, who, funds, v. 518 Pa. for lack of sufficient is son 491, (1988), 544 A.2d 927 legal counsel: unable to obtain

Supreme adopted stringent Court less appointed standard for the withdrawal of proceed- Probation and counsel from cases in which the ings thereof. and revocation from the counsel does not derive United Coades, 9960.6(a)(10); § Constitution, 16 P.S. 480 A.2d ap- as collateral States such that, Supreme States 1305. The United The held rather than an peals. Court brief, regarding may Gagnon, provide stated Anders counsel instead letter2 na- a “no-merit” which details “the parolees of to counsel: " 1144, (referring to such a letter as a ‘no merit’ 1. Act of December P.L. amended, 9960.6(a)(10). § noting 16 P.S. letter” and that such a letter is also letter,” commonly “Finley referred to as a 2. Such letters are referred to vаrious Superior referring Court case Common See, names courts of this Commonwealth. 313, Finley, Pa.Super. 479 A.2d wealth v. Porter, e.g., Commonwealth v. Shanon, (1984)); Zerby v. A.2d & n. 728 A.2d 893 & n. Parole, 707 Probation and A.2d attorney’s] review Board extent of [the ture and of (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), petitioner wished each issue the 1215-16 and list[s] raised, explanation with counsel’s letter to have held that a no-merit must meritless,” at are those issues why of substantively petition- each of the address its own must conduct point which the court baldly arguments, stating rather than er’s the claim is meritless. review of whether merit. that the claims are without This Court 544 A.2d at 928. Id. at years, this has shown In recent Pennsylva- Epps Turner in applied first for whether it receives an little concern Parole, 129 Board nia letter in a brief or a no-merit Anders (1989), which Pa.Cmwlth. See, e.g., matter. Reavis parole revocation a recommitment with an dealt Probation and that counsel seek- Epps recognized order. (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) could file either Anders ing to withdraw seeking to withdraw (stating that counsel Epps, 565 A.2d or a no-merit letter. brief Turner). may proceed Craig under no-merit letter de- Unlike the Turner, explaining recently rather than has drawn little dis- scribed This Court meritless, issues why petitioner’s tinction between whether case must be ex- a letter should Epps stated such “meritless” before counsel “frivolous” or is “frivo- petitioner’s appeal plain how may withdraw.3 Later, however, in Id. Frankhous lous.” (Pa. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956 Zerby er, 598 A.2d 607 143 Pa.Cmwlth. Cmwlth.2009), case, recalculation challenged the in which the (consistent Supe- discussed this Court of what credit he was Board’s calculation jurisprudence) per Epps rior Court backtime, this Court against ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‍to receive Frankhouser, all that letter need clarified that a no-merit repre- to withdraw from appeal is without “allege parolee’s that the sentation in an determination merit,” requirements in accord with the showing a no-merit letter Frankhouser, of the Board is at 598 A.2d Turner. added). Zerby, without merit. In that the case is (emphasis however, presented this Court was Frankhouser, there have been Since and, so, with the issue there was no discus- to this Court’s only small refinements proceed counsel should where sion of how may withdraw for when counsel standard to counsel in there is a constitutional in representation probation/parole from parole cases. Pennsylvania Wesley In hearings. Parole,

Board there is a consti In a case where 355, 356 this 614 A.2d Cmwlth. seeking tutional with- that counsel Court held peti of a to withdraw with the technical re- comply draw must tioner in an of a determinatiоn Craig before this quirements of Turner or the Board should file an Anders brief. independently assess the merits Court will a: petitioner arises where the raises In Hill v. This of the case. letter”); ("Turner (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) the stan- While the Court often describes frivolous, we have Blackwell, as whether the case is dard A.2d locate case in which this not been able to ("Tumer/Finley let- (Pa.Super.Ct.2007) permission to withdraw on Court has denied ter”). refer to such opinion, In we shall this case, although petitioner's the basis that meritless, as no-merit letters. letters not frivolous. above, (i) under Tur not com- As discussed claim that he has colorable standard, letter must detail ner Counsel’s of the condi- alleged mitted the violation re [Counsel’s] “the nature and extent (ii) liberty; he is at or upon tions which view and each issue list[ ] if is a matter of even the violation raised, with counsel’s ex wished to have uncontested, there public record or is why issues are merit- planation of those justified which are substantial reasons Turner, Pa. less.” make rev- mitigated or the violation and Here, No-Merit Letter at 928. Counsel’s and that the rea- inappropriate, ocation case, history of the procedural out the sets are or otherwise difficult sons in review of the record reflecting Counsel’s develop present. this matter. While Counsel’s No-Merit 93 S.Ct. 1756. Gagnon, each of the issues Letter does not discuss only appeals arise Such claims would (which Petition for Review raised revoking parole. from determinations drafted), explain it does that this Counsel decision, from a revocation this order, limited the issue Gagnon, will the test from apply Hughes’ request to the timeliness of case above, and, met, quoted unless that test is relief. In his No-Merit Letter, explains Hughes’ that we will a no-merit letter.4 Counsel require challenge to his recommitment as con bar, In the filed case Counsel untimely victed violator is because a no-merit letter. Petition Hughes, on this issue was the Board’s decision is Court, alleged to this Hughes’ Re sued December recommitting him as a сonvicted quest for Administrative Relief was not timely violator was not held and that the February mailed until more than correctly maxi Board did not calculate his years support, five later. Counsel cites subsequently mum date. This limit Wright Board Proba requested by ed the issues in this case as (Pa. Parole, tion to the timeliness of Board Cmwlth.1999), Pennsylva and Woodard v. request review of the for administrative Probation and nia to whether Board’s revocation decision and (1990). 257, 582 A.2d 1144 Pa.Cmwlth. for review of the recalculation Wright рropo and Woodard stand for order was rendered moot the Board’s that a and a sition recommitment order subsequent decision.5 These not is separate appealable recalculation order are sues that are or difficult to 1006; devel Wright, orders. A.2d Wood therefore, ard, op; only a no-merit letter specifical at 1146. Woodard ly that a could not chal- should be of Counsel. held past, deny applica- petitioner’s appeal.” 4. As in die we will not an simply attorney tion to an because Hughes v. Board Probation of filed Parole, C.D.2008, has filed an Anders brief where a no-merit (No. July letter would suffice. In cases where there is 2008). inadvertently, Apparently the moot- however, no constitutional explicitly not included. How- ness issue was apply we shall still of whether standard ever, granting we read this Court’s order tire merit, petitioner’s claims are without giving Limit the Board Motion to as they rather than whether are frivolous. limitation what it asked for its motion: challenge to the timeliness of tire issues above, Court, by 5. As noted order dated this of the chal- revocation and mootness 28, 2008, July granted the Board's Motion to lenge Hughes' maxi- to the recalculation of so, doing Limit. this Court stated "[t]he date. mum matter limited to the issue is timeliness Letter, order, in his No-Merit has not through a ness issue lenge a recommitment And, authority. or- such in- subsequent pointed recalculation challenge of a der, deed, the recommitment regard the Board’s decision in this is where untimely. Id. at have beеn in that it to have troubling appears order would defeat- Therefore, No-Merit Counsel’s by 1146-47. for administrative review ed reasons provide substantial Letter does subsequent, less favorable recal- issuing to his recommit- Hughes’ challenges why decision, Hughes may which not culation violator are a convicted ment as required him to file another have realized However, because Coun- without merit. certainly is an issue that appeal. This sufficiently does not no-merit letter sel’s We, by attention there- merits Counsel. in Hughes’ raised all the issues address fore, deny Application, Counsel’s below, Petition, may we not we discuss as application leave to file an amended for the mer- independent review of conduct an no-merit letter leave to withdrawal and A.2d at Wesley, See its of this issue. or, days, alternatively, within 30 a brief in (this an exami- “does not reach support Hughes’ Petition. until it merits of the nation of the discharged counsel has satisfied that ORDER with the techni- responsibility complying of an Anders brief or a requirements cal NOW, Application for June letter”). We, therefore, reach no no-merit by Leave to Withdraw as Counsel filed merits of the as to the ultimate conclusion (Counsel) D. in the Kent Watkins above- Hughes’ chal- of the timeliness of issue hereby matter is DENIED with captioned order. lenge of his recommitment application to file an for leave amended issue, mootness Regarding the Counsel’s leave to withdraw as with an Counsel it inadequate Letter is does No-Merit days; amended no-merit letter within 30 if reasons for con- provide “substantial applica- chooses not to file such an Counsel authority proposi- for the cluding that” or tion, he shall file a Petitioner’s Brief within regarding the Hughes’ complaints tion that days of this order. were

January 2008 recalculation order order ex- by subsequent moot rendered Judge DISSENTING OPINION BY date three tending his maximum McGINLEY. months. Jefferson majority’s I dissent to the respectfully 513, 514 of (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). provide failed to conclusion Counsel It is true that subse- for that the concluding substantial reasons Hughes’ Request Administra- quent order January recalculation January 2008 recal- tive Review of the moot order rendered order, issued a second culation the Board Hughes’s maximum date which extended However, the second recalculation order. by three months. stated in his Counsel approximately three months order added letter, “Additionally, although addition, Hughes’ maximum date. to the recalculated maximum sentence was cite, May either in its the Board did timely, decision mailed 2008 denial of 14, 2008, a new calculation. Limit, April presented au- appeal its Motion 28, 2008, Therefore, February his adminis- thority support argument as moot. Pe- trative was dismissed was rendered moot January 2008 order April Similarly, [Hughes] appealed titioner never 2008 order. April Letter Counsel, recalculation order.” although he addressed the moot- Watkins, from Kent D. October Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH calculation of the maxi- 4. Once the new By Attorney Acting General Thomas Board, mum announced date was CORBETT, W. Jr. Hughes’s this new calculation rendered January recalcu- challenge to the Wesley SNYDER, Sydney Snyder, Alvin lation order moot. Counsel was terse Jacqueline Hepford-Rennie, Julie Ann explanation but he did set forth Musser, Hunt, Louise Kenneth Susan reason the for administrative ‍‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‍relief Roger Bennetch, Cheryl Bennetch and grant petition I would was moot. Alyssha Mary Waid affirm on the merits. Appeal of: Kenneth Bennetch. Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of LEADBETTER Judge President Attorney Acting by General Judge join in this dissent. LEAVITT Corbett, Thоmas Jr. W. Wesley Snyder, Sydney Snyder, Alvin Jacqueline Hepford-Rennie, Julie Ann Musser, Hunt, Louise Kenneth Susan Roger Bennetch, Cheryl Ann Ben netch, Amy Styer Mary Lou and Alicia Waid Appeal of: Julie Ann Musser. Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of by Attorney Acting General Corbett, Thomas W. Jr. Wesley Snyder, Sydney Snyder, Alvin Jacquelyn Hepford-Rennie, Julie Ann Musser, Hunt, Louise Kenneth Susan Roger Bennetch, Cheryl Ann Ben netch, Amy Styer, Lou and Alicia Mary Waid Appeal Jacquelyne Hepford-Rennie. of: Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of by Attorney Acting General Corbett, Thomas W. Jr. Wesley Snyder, Sydney Snyder, Alvin Jacqueline Hepford-Rennie, Julie Ann Musser, Hunt, Susan Louise Kenneth Bennetch, Cheryl Roger Ann Ben netch, Amy Styer, Lou and Alicia Mary Waid

Case Details

Case Name: Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jun 9, 2009

Citation: 977 A.2d 19

Docket Number: 1075 C.D. 2008

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.