M. C. Romig v. PA Board of Probation and Parole (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael C. Romig, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 1071 C.D. 2007 Submitted: December 28, 2007 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: February 25, 2008 Michael C. Romig (Romig) petitions for review of the May 21, 2007, order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which denied Romig s administrative appeal for failure to allege any specific errors or request any specific relief.1 We affirm on other grounds. In 2004, Romig received a sentence of five months to two years for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and driving while his license was under suspension. (C.R. at 1.) On July 17, 2005, Romig was released on parole with a maximum date of November 22, 2006. On May 15, 2006, Romig was 1 The Board will deny an administrative appeal for failure to present with specificity whatever is essential to a ready and adequate understanding of the factual and legal points requiring consideration. 37 Pa. Code §73.1(a)(3). arrested for simple assault, harassment and disorderly conduct in connection with a fight that he had with his girlfriend, who is now his wife. Romig posted bail the following day. The Board continued Romig on parole pending disposition of the criminal charges. (C.R. at 10, 13, 70.) On January 17, 2007, after Romig s maximum date had expired, the Board declared Romig delinquent for control purposes, effective May 15, 2006. (C.R. at 15.) On January 22, 2007, Romig was convicted of simple assault in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County.2 The Board then issued a detainer warrant. (C.R. at 17, 22.) On March 6, 2007, following a parole revocation hearing, the Board revoked Romig s parole and recommitted Romig as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve nine months backtime. (C.R. at 38, 63). Romig filed an administrative appeal, asserting that his maximum date expired on November 22, 2006. (C.R. at 68.) The Board subsequently denied the appeal for lack of specificity. (C.R. at 74.) Romig now petitions this court for review.3 2 The harassment and disorderly conduct charges were nolle prossed. On April 5, 2007, Romig received a sentence of thirty days to fifteen months for simple assault. (C.R. at 22.) 3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704. 2 Romig argues that, because the Board allowed Romig to continue on parole following his arrest and took no action against him until his maximum date had expired, the Board lacked jurisdiction after the maximum date to revoke his parole. We disagree.4 In Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 752, 902 A.2d 1242 (2006), this court held that, under section 21.1a(a) of the Act commonly known as the Parole Act,5 the Board retains jurisdiction to recommit a parolee for a crime committed while on parole even after the expiration of the parolee s maximum sentence date. That provision states: Any parolee under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Board of Parole released from any penal institution of the Commonwealth who, during the period of parole or while delinquent on parole, commits any crime punishable by imprisonment, from which he is convicted or is found guilty by a judge or jury or to which he pleads guilty or nolo contendere at any time thereafter in a court of record, may, at the discretion of the board, be recommitted as a parole violator. 61 P.S. §331.21a(a) (emphasis added). Here, while Romig was a parolee under the jurisdiction of the Board, he committed the punishable crime of simple assault and, 4 Although the Board denied Romig s appeal for lack of specificity, this court may consider questions involving the subject matter jurisdiction of a government unit even though they were not raised before the government unit. Pa. R.A.P. 1551(a)(2). 5 Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, as amended, added by section 5 of the Act of August 24, 1951, P.L. 1401, as amended, 61 P.S. §331.21a(a). 3 afterward, was convicted of that crime in a court of record. Thus, the Board had jurisdiction to revoke Romig s parole and recommit him as a CPV. Accordingly, we affirm on other grounds. _____________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael C. Romig, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 1071 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2008, the order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, dated May 21, 2007, is hereby affirmed on other grounds. _____________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
