Miles J. Flowers, petitioner, for himself.
Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Chief Counsel, with him, Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Craig and Barry JJ., and Blatt, Senior Judge.
[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 181]
Miles J. Flowers appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole that dismissed his request for reconsideration as an untimely administrative appeal. We affirm.
The board, by orders dated August 7, 1986 and January 29, 1987, recommitted Flowers as a technical and convicted
[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 182]
parole violator. Flowers filed a request for administrative relief, which the board denied. Flowers unsuccessfully appealed that decision to this court. Flowers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, (No. 640 C.D.1987, filed October 13, 1987).
Flowers filed a request for reconsideration of the board's parole revocation orders on November 7, 1988. On November 30, 1988 the board dismissed that request as untimely. Flowers now appeals that decision to this court. By order dated January 1, 1989, this court granted the board's motion to limit the issue before the court to the timeliness of Flowers' reconsideration request.
As stated in Threats v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 102 Pa. Commw. 315, 518 A.2d 327 (1986), rev'd. on other grounds, 520 Pa. 182, 553 A.2d 906 (1989), "[t]he decision to grant or deny a request for reconsideration is a matter of administrative discretion and this court is empowered to reverse only for an abuse of that discretion." 102 Pa. Commw at 317, 518 A.2d at 328. See also, Snipes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 107 Pa. Commw. 72, 527 A.2d 1080 (1987).
Unlike Threats, Flowers has not argued that there has been a subsequent change in the law which could be applied retroactively to produce a different result from the board's disposition of Flowers' original appeal. See also, Gordon v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 270, 273, 403 A.2d 235, 236 (1979). Flowers had an adequate remedy in his initial request for administrative relief. Rauser v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 107 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 216, 528 A.2d 290 (1987).
The board's denial of reconsideration specifically recognized that Rivenbark v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 509 Pa. 248, 501 A.2d 1110 (1985), the decision upon which this court relied in Threats in determining that the board should consider the petitioner's ...