M. L. Hulstine v. PA Board of Probation and Parole (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael L. Hulstine, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 1403 C.D. 2007 Submitted: April 11, 2008 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: May 29, 2008 Michael L. Hulstine (Hulstine) petitions for review of the June 25, 2007, order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board), which affirmed the Board s calculation of Hulstine s parole violation maximum date of July 23, 2008. We dismiss the petition for review. On August 3, 2006, while on parole from a state sentence, Hulstine was arrested and charged with drug-related offenses. As a result, the Board issued a detainer warrant. Hulstine was charged with additional drug-related offenses on August 18, 2006. Hulstine posted bail and, thus, as of August 18, 2006, he was detained solely on the Board warrant. Hulstine was convicted on four of the drugrelated offenses on December 20, 2006, receiving concurrent sentences of three to twelve months. Hulstine v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1403 C.D. 2007, filed February 8, 2008) (Hulstine I). After a parole revocation hearing, the Board recommitted Hulstine as a convicted parole violator (CPV) to serve one year and eight months backtime on his original sentence. The Board determined that Hulstine s new maximum date would be July 23, 2008. In calculating the new maximum date, the Board gave Hulstine credit for the time he was held solely on the Board s detainer warrant from August 18, 2006, to December 20, 2006. The Board then added the number of days remaining on Hulstine s original sentence to the date of March 27, 2007, to arrive at the July 23, 2008, maximum date. Hulstine I. Hulstine filed a request for administrative relief, arguing that the Board failed to give him credit for the time he was held solely on the Board s detainer warrant from August 22, 2006, to December 23, 2006. The Board issued a decision affirming its calculation, stating that it gave Hulstine credit for the period from August 18, 2006, to December 20, 2006. The Board also indicated that it added the number of days remaining on Hulstine s sentence to the date of March 27, 2007, because that was the date when Hulstine became available. Hulstine I. Hulstine then filed his petition for review with this court. Hulstine argued for the first time in his petition that the Board failed to give him credit for the period of confinement from December 20, 2006, to March 27, 2007. Hulstine contended that: (1) he was in a state correctional institution during that time and, thus, could not get credit on his county sentences; and (2) he was required to serve his original sentence before beginning his county sentence. 2 Appointed counsel filed an application for leave to withdraw, which this court denied because counsel s no-merit letter did not address the issues raised in Hulstine s petition for review. Hulstine I. Appointed counsel now has filed a brief, in which counsel argues that the Board abused its discretion by waiting until it obtained necessary signatures for Hulstine s recommitment before beginning Hulstine s backtime on March 27, 2007. Because the issue addressed in Hulstine s brief was not raised in Hulstine s petition for review, that issue is waived. Greene County Children and Youth Services v. Department of Public Welfare, 913 A.2d 974 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 730, 928 A.2d 1291 (2007). Because the issues raised by Hulstine in his petition for review were not developed in the brief, those issues are waived. Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 729 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Finally, all of the issues raised here are waived because they were not raised before the Board. Pa. R.A.P. 1551(a) (stating that, except in certain circumstances that do not apply here, no question shall be considered by an appellate court which was not raised before the government unit). Accordingly, we dismiss Hulstine s petition for review. _____________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge 3 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael L. Hulstine, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 1403 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2008, it is hereby ordered that the petition for review filed by Michael L. Hulstine is dismissed. _____________________________ 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.
