L.C. Snider v. PPB ( 2023 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lamont C. Snider, :
Petitioner :
: No. 80 C.D. 2022
v. :
: Submitted: September 30, 2022
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: July 24, 2023
Lamont C. Snider (Snider) petitions for review of a decision of the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (Board) that denied him a 30-day extension to file an
administrative appeal of the Board’s October 20, 2021 decision. Also before the Court
is the application of Victoria Hermann, Esquire (Counsel), for leave to withdraw as
counsel (Application). Upon careful review, we quash Snider’s Petition for Review to
this Court as untimely, and dismiss Counsel’s Application as moot.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2015, Snider was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of two
to five years’ incarceration based on his conviction of one firearm charge and two drug-
related offenses. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 1-3.) Snider was subsequently released
on parole to a motivational boot camp on May 2, 2016, with a maximum sentence date
of May 3, 2020. (C.R. at 4.) On November 12, 2019, the Board issued a warrant to
commit and detain Snider pending disposition of new criminal charges. (C.R. at 9, 16.)
On July 14, 2021, Snider was found guilty of criminal attempt to commit criminal
homicide, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of a crime with intent.
(C.R. at 32.)
On August 26, 2021, in proceedings before the Board, Snider waived his
rights to counsel and a hearing and admitted that his new criminal convictions were
parole violations. (C.R. at 18-19.) On October 20, 2021, the Board mailed a
recommitment decision in which it recommitted Snider as a convicted parole violator
to serve the unexpired term of 4 years and 25 days on his original sentence. (C.R. at
59-60.) Snider’s new maximum sentence date was recalculated to be October 15, 2021.
(C.R. at 60.)
On November 18, 2021, 29 days after the Board’s decision, Snider sent a
letter to Board Secretary, Deborah L. Carpenter, requesting a 30-day extension to file
his appeal of the Board’s October 20, 2021 decision due to the COVID-19 pandemic
and the institution running on a modified schedule. (C.R. at 64.) Snider stated that due
to the “institution[’]s understaffing and lockdowns, due to staff assaults and prisoner
assaults, scheduled appoints [sic] for school, library/law library is cancelled.” Id.
Snider further stated that due to a new sign-up procedure, it was difficult for him to get
on the list to use the library. Id. Snider otherwise did not provide any information
about the issues he intended to raise in his administrative appeal of the Board’s October
20, 2021 recommitment decision and did not file an administrative appeal with the
Board at any time after his November 18, 2021 correspondence.
The Board responded to Snider’s administrative appeal on December 16,
2021, and stated that “[a]dministrative appeals must be filed within 30[ ]days of the
2
mailing date of the Board’s decision” and that its regulations authorizing administrative
relief does not permit extensions. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 67.) The Board noted
that “any submissions received outside the established timeframe will be dismissed as
untimely,” and affirmed its October 20, 2021 decision. Id.
Snider placed his pro se Petition for Review in the mail on January 20,
2022, two days after his appeal window expired. By order dated February 24, 2022,
we appointed Counsel to represent Snider, indicated Counsel may file an amended
Petition for Review. Within 30 days of being appointed, Counsel filed a no-merit
Turner1 letter and Application instead of filing an amended Petition for Review on
March 22, 2022. In her Turner letter, Counsel did not address the timeliness of Snider’s
Petition for Review. Counsel analyzed the legal issues raised in Snider’s Petition for
Review and explained her reasons for concluding those issues were meritless. Counsel
provided Snider a copy of the Turner letter and Application and advised him he may
obtain new counsel or proceed pro se before this Court. On April 6, 2022, this Court
issued an order indicating that it would consider Counsel’s Application along with the
merits of Snider’s Petition for Review, and directing the parties to address the
timeliness of Snider’s Petition for Review, i.e., whether it was filed within 30 days of
the Board’s order, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1512(a)(1).
The order also advised Snider that he had 30 days from service of the order to either
obtain new counsel and have counsel file a brief in support of the Petition for Review,
or for Snider to file his own brief pro se. The record indicates that Counsel served
Snider a copy of the order. Snider did not obtain new counsel, nor did he file an
amended Petition for Review or pro se brief addressing the timeliness of his Petition
1
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner letter).
3
for Review. Likewise, the Board did not file a brief or a motion to quash on timeliness
grounds.2
II. DISCUSSION
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1512(a)(1) provides that “[a]
petition for review of a quasijudicial order . . . shall be filed with the prothonotary of
the appellate court within 30 days after the entry of the order.” Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a)(1).
The failure to file a timely petition for review from the Board’s decision deprives this
Court of jurisdiction to consider its merits. See Hillanbrand v. Pennsylvania Board of
Probation & Parole, 508 A.2d 375, 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (parolee’s untimely
petition for review deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
petition). “[T]he court may not enlarge the time for filing a . . . petition for review[.]”
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 105(b).
Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se appeal is deemed filed
at the time it is given to prison officials or put in the prison mailbox. Kittrell v. Watson,
88 A.3d 1091, 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). A prisoner may meet this burden by providing
“any reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the appeal,”
including “certificates of mailing, cash slips, affidavits, [or] prison operating
procedures.” Sweesy v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 955 A.2d 501,
503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). However, a late-filed appeal may be considered nunc pro
tunc, “if the delay in filing was caused by extraordinary circumstances involving fraud
or breakdown in the administrative process or non-negligent circumstances related to
the [petitioner], his attorney, or a third party.” McCullough v. Pennsylvania Board of
Probation & Parole, 256 A.3d 466, 471 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (citations omitted).
2
Timeliness of an appeal is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which we may raise at any
time sua sponte. Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 522 A.2d 155, 157 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1987).
4
Here, the Board’s adjudication denying Snider’s request for extension and
affirming its October 20, 2021 decision was mailed on December 16, 2021. Under
Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a)(1), Snider was required to file his Petition for Review within 30
days of the date the adjudication was mailed, i.e., by January 18, 2022. The cash slip
filed with Snider’s Petition for Review indicates that he paid for postage on January
20, 2022, and thus, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, his Petition for Review was
deemed filed on that date. See Petition for Review at 13. On its face, Snider’s Petition
for Review is untimely. Snider did not file a pro se brief addressing the timeliness of
his Petition for Review as we directed in our April 6, 2022 order and has not provided
any evidence indicating that his Petition for Review with this Court should be
considered timely. Additionally, Snider has not requested nunc pro tunc relief due to
alleged fraud or breakdown in operations with respect to the untimeliness of his filing
with this Court. For these reasons, we are constrained to conclude that we are without
jurisdiction over Snider’s Petition for Review, and therefore, cannot reach the merits
of Snider’s Petition for Review.
Accordingly, we quash Snider’s Petition for Review and dismiss as moot
Counsel’s Application.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lamont C. Snider, :
Petitioner :
: No. 80 C.D. 2022
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Parole Board, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2023, the Court having concluded
that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner Lamont C. Snider’s Petition
for Review, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal is QUASHED, and that the
Application to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Victoria Hermann, Esquire is
DISMISSED as MOOT.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge