Original jurisdiction in case of Albert Kemp v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
Albert Kemp, petitioner, for himself.
Robert A. Greevy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Bowman and Judge Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 314]
The matter before us for decision is a Petition for Review of the respondent's order recommitting petitioner as a technical parole violator. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of one year to five years, effective September 13, 1973, with a minimum date of September 13, 1974, and a maximum date of September 13, 1978.*fn1
After parole and several technical parole violations and one criminal violation, petitioner was reparoled on July 30, 1976. He was arrested on January 1, 1977, having turned himself in, on charges of
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 315]
technical parole violation, i.e., changing residence without permission, traveling outside the area of parole without permission, and failure to successfully complete ARC House Program and failure to become involved in out-patient psychological counseling. On January 6, 1977 petitioner was notified of these alleged violations. On January 11, 1977, a preliminary hearing was held and, as a result thereof, petitioner was ordered held as a technical parole violator.
At this point the regulations of respondent, namely regulation 71.2(10), 37 Pa. Code § 71.2(10), provide:
If the Board finds there is probable cause for revocation, a hearing shall be scheduled as promptly as possible but not later than within 30 days of the action of the Board.
The first hearing date fixed was March 22, 1977. However, there is nothing in this record to show when petitioner was notified of this hearing date. He knew of it on March 16, 1977 when he wrote a letter declining to attend because he did not have an attorney. He eventually had a Violation Hearing on May 10, 1977. As a result of this hearing, petitioner was recommitted as a technical parole violator.
While other issues are raised by the Petition for Review, the only one that need be considered is whether the delay of the first Violation Hearing date until March 22, 1977 ...