 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ulisky v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole10/18/2005
Tracy Ulisky petitions the Court pro se for review of the January 10, 2005 decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) that denied as untimely Ulisky's November 29 and November 30, 2004 administrative appeals. Ulisky objected to the timeliness of the Board's June 6, 2003 revocation hearing and the forfeiture of his street time; he objected to the Board's October 27, 2004 decision making modifications to prior orders establishing Ulisky's parole maximum dates to reflect a one-day credit for his confinement from April 7 to April 8, 1981; and he objected to the Board's October 28, 2004 decision denying reparole. In its January 2005 decision, the Board stated that Ulisky's challenge to the timeliness of his revocation hearing was in actuality an appeal from the Board's September 23, 2003 recommitment order and that to the extent Ulisky objected to a forfeiture of his street time he sought relief from the July 21, 2004 recalculation decision rather than from the October 27, 2004 modification decision.
Ulisky questions whether the Board unlawfully revoked his parole, whether the Board has falsely contended that he was provided a revocation hearing on June 6, 2003 and whether the Board imposed sanctions that exceeded the presumptive parole backtime ranges and that are unreasonable and/or manifestly excessive. The Board questions, inter alia, the timeliness of the administrative appeals and whether the issues before this Court are waived.
In October 2001, while on reparole from a rape conviction, Ulisky was arrested for driving with a suspended license and for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. On May 28, 2003, he was sentenced by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas to twelve to twenty-four months less one day to be served under house arrest. Ulisky testified at the June 6, 2003 revocation hearing that he immediately informed his former parole agent of the DUI arrest and that the parole agent told him that he would "see what he could do about keeping out of jail." C.R. at 70. Ulisky asserts that because of the "negotiated agreement" with his parole agent allegedly resolving any parole violations, he accepted the terms of the agreement and waived his right to a panel hearing and his right to counsel. Ulisky states that the "negotiated agreement" provided that if he entered a plea to the DUI charge, he would receive ten months of backtime to run concurrently with any sentence imposed by the court of common pleas. Brian D. Helfrich, Ulisky's parole agent at the time of the revocation hearing, entered Ulisky's guilty plea and sentencing order into evidence.
On September 23, 2003, the Board remailed its revocation decision to Ulisky recommitting him to six months backtime as a convicted parole violator due to his DUI guilty plea. In a decision mailed July 21, 2004, the Board provided notice of its July 13, 2003 action recommitting Ulisky to a state correctional institution as a technical and as a convicted parole violator to serve a total of ten months backtime. In its October 27, 2004 decision, the Board made modifications to Ulisky's parole violation maximum dates and recomputed the maximum date set forth in the Board action recorded July 13, 2004 (mailed July 21) to read "June 8, 2012." In its October 28, 2004 decision, the Board denied reparole to Ulisky.
Ulisky filed an administrative appeal with the Board through counsel on November 29, 2004, objecting to the Board's October 27 and October 28, 2004 decisions, and on November 30, 2004 he filed a pro se administrative appeal raising additional objections. In his counseled appeal, Ulisky contended that at the parole review he did not have an o
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|