# Wiley v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 11, 2009 · 967 A.2d 1060

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694010

## Case

- **Full name:** Marc WILEY, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 11, 2009
- **Citations:** 967 A.2d 1060; 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 97; 2009 WL 605410
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Simpson
- **Judges:** Leadbetter, McGinley, Smith-Ribner, Pellegrini, Simpson, Leavitt, Butler
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694010

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Board may take official notice of a Form 257-C contained in its own files when the form is offered into evidence and pertains to a necessary factual determination

## Opinion text

*1064 CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to express my concern about this Court’s inconsistent application of the doctrine of official notice. In particular, I believe a recent case employing the doctrine, Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 954 A.2d 107 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008), was wrongly decided. I fear that this case compounds the problems of Ramos by failing to distinguish it.
Both this case and Ramos deal with receipt into evidence of an official record of the Board. In this case, admission of the record is upheld under the doctrine of official notice, thereby supporting a finding that the revocation hearing was timely. In Ramos , admission of an official record of the Board was disallowed, despite the doctrine of official notice, thereby resulting in a determination that the revocation hearing was not proved to be timely. To me, the cases are inconsistent.
Both this case and Ramos are controlled by our Court’s decision in Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 627 , 569 A.2d 368 , appeal denied, 523 Pa. 652 , 567 A.2d 655 (1989). In Taylor , as in this case and in Ramos , a question arose as to whether a revocation hearing for a parolee convicted of a new crime was timely. In Taylor , a continuance request form was received in evidence over hearsay and confrontation objections. The form, which was in the Board’s files for the parolee, bore notations of an institutional supervisor indicating the parolee asked for the continuance but refused to sign the form. The supervisor, who worked at the institution where the hearing was held but did not testify, also noted on the form the date and time of the conversation with the parolee as well as the parolee’s comments concerning his reason for the continuance. Id. at 369-70. This Court held receipt of the form proper under the doctrine of official notice. Also, based on the form, this Court held that the parolee requested a continuance, during which the time for holding a hearing was suspended, and that the revocation hearing was timely.
I cannot reconcile this case, Ramos and Taylor . Our goal is to clarify the law, not to unsettle it. My concern is that between Ramos and this case, we achieve the latter result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694010. Public record. Not legal advice.