Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in the case of William J. McCaffrey, Parole No. 7759-D.
John C. Armstrong, Chief, Parole Division, for petitioner.
Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Doyle, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 278]
William McCaffrey (Petitioner)*fn1 petitions for review of an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) revoking his parole. We affirm.
Petitioner has a long history of sexual offenses, especially those involving children. In 1979, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of deviate sexual intercourse (both involving children) and sentenced to a five-to-ten year term. He was paroled on February 5, 1986, with the following special condition: "[m]ust not associate with minor children under the age of 18." A later portion of this same condition also stated that "[a]ny unauthorized association with a juvenile is an immediate parole violation."
On September 6, 1986, J. P., a thirteen year old minor, was riding his bike in the 4300 block of Avondale Avenue, Philadelphia. Petitioner drove into the block, during which time he had money in his hand. Petitioner drove his car past the minor waving the money. Petitioner's automobile circled the block and this time he waved more money. Petitioner circled the block a third time and came back, this time pointing to the minor to
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 279]
approach his car, which the minor refused to do. Petitioner again circled the block and this time said to the minor he would give the minor twenty dollars if he got into his vehicle and rode with him. This incident was reported to police, and the Board initiated parole revocation proceedings.
After a hearing, Petitioner's parole was revoked due to his violation of the parole condition relating to association with minors. He was recommitted to serve eighteen months backtime. Petitioner's counsel then filed a petition for administrative relief alleging only that "[t]he Board committed errors of law, violated petitioner's constitutional rights and failed to support [sic] substantial evidence." The Board dismissed Petitioner's request for administrative relief because it failed to comply with 37 Pa. Code § 71.5(h), which requires that petitions for administrative relief specifically set forth the facts or legal basis for the relief sought. This appeal follows.*fn2
The Board argues that Petitioner has waived all issues for appellate review. We agree. 37 Pa. Code § 71.5(h) provides in pertinent part that "[t]he application [for administrative relief] shall set forth specifically the factual and legal basis for the allegations." It is clear that the quoted portion of the regulation requires a prisoner seeking administrative relief to make his claims with at least some small degree of specificity. Here, all ...