Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in case of Michael Hracho, Parole No. 9943-K.
Frederick I. Huganir, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.
Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 223]
Michael Hracho (petitioner) appeals a decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) recommitting petitioner as a technical parole violator. Having been denied his Petition for Administrative Relief, this appeal followed.
Petitioner was under parole supervision when he was arrested in North Carolina. Upon being paroled from his conviction in North Carolina, petitioner was returned to the State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill, where he was resentenced as a direct*fn1 and technical
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 224]
parole violator.*fn2 The only witness to testify against petitioner at his revocation hearing was Joseph Menegat, an employee of the Board, who admitted having no personal knowledge of petitioner's technical parole violation.
Petitioner argues that the evidence upon which the Hearing Examiner relied and based his decision was purely hearsay and that the Examiner's finding that good cause existed for the absence of witnesses was in error. We agree with both contentions.
It is quite apparent from the record that a copy of a letter from the arresting officer in North Carolina (Sgt. Ditto) was the sole basis for the Board's finding. Board employee Joseph Menegat was allowed to submit this letter into evidence which was forwarded to the Board from petitioner's parole officer in North Carolina. The contents of this letter stated as follows:
This is to inform you that do [sic] to evidence found at the crime scene on 6/18/84 it is my belief that Michael had consumed or was under the influence of a alcoholic beverage. Also on 6/19/84 the date of his arrest he was ...