Opinion
No. 863 C.D. 2014
01-23-2015
Frederick Hartman, III, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Frederick Hartman, III (Hartman) petitions for review of the May 9, 2014, order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which affirmed the Board's decision mailed on January 28, 2014, recommitting Hartman as a technical parole violator. We affirm.
On October 22, 2013, Hartman violated his parole by testing positive for an illegal amphetamine. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 29.) Consequently, on November 25, 2013, Hartman was detained on a Board warrant to recommit as a technical parole violator. (Id. at 28.) Hartman refused to sign the notice of charges and hearing form (form PBPP-257N) provided to him that also states the name and address of the Clinton County Public Defender office. (Id. at 29.) However, Hartman signed a waiver of violation hearing and counsel/admission form (form PBPP-72). (Id. at 41.) In a decision mailed January 28, 2014, the Board recommitted Hartman to nine months' back-time based on his admissions. (Id. at 42.) On February 7 and March 18, 2014, Hartman filed pro se requests for administrative relief with the Board. (R.R. at 46, 49-50.) In an order mailed May 9, 2014, the Board affirmed the January 28, 2014, decision. (Id. at 53.) Hartman now petitions this court for review.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law occurred, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 954 A.2d 107, 109 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Hartman argues that the Board erred in denying him a final violation hearing. Specifically, Hartman argues that his waivers of a violation hearing and counsel were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the Board did not provide him the name and address of the local public defender. However, because Hartman failed to raise this issue in his requests for administrative relief, the issue is waived. A parolee's "failure to raise an issue before the Board results in waiver and precludes this Court from review." McKenzie v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 963 A.2d 616, 621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
In his requests for administrative relief, Hartman denied using an illegal amphetamine and argued that his parole officer did not explain that form PBPP-72 was also an admission of parole violation. (R.R. at 46, 49-50.) However, Hartman failed to argue, as he now does, that his waivers were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the Board failed to provide the name and address of the local public defender. Therefore, the only issue Hartman raised on appeal is waived.
Even if this claim were not waived, we reject Hartman's argument that the Board failed to provide him with the name and address of the local public defender. Hartman's argument is based on the fact that form PBPP-257N lists the Clinton County Public Defender's Office rather than a specific attorney's name. To obtain a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver, the Board must show that it followed its own regulations and provided the offender with all the necessary information prior to the offender signing the waiver form. Prebella v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 942 A.2d 257, 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The Board's regulation at 37 Pa. Code §71.2(11)(v), requires the Board to notify a technical parole violator of the "name and address of the public defender" prior to a violation hearing. Contrary to Hartman's argument, we have not interpreted this regulation as requiring the Board to provide the specific name of an individual public defender. Here, Hartman does not dispute that he was presented with form PBPP-257N, which listed the name and address of the local public defender's office. --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2015, we hereby affirm the May 9, 2014, order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge