PA Superior Court: Trial Court Cannot Stack Three Maximum Sentences for Technical Probation Violations at a Single Hearing Under Act 44

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 2026 PA Super 54 (Pa. Super. March 19, 2026), holding that a trial court erred in imposing a one-to-two-year term of imprisonment for three technical probation violations that were all presented at the same hearing. Although the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the defendant had committed flagrant technical violations, it vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the graduated sentencing scheme in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c)(2). This case is one of the first to address the sentencing limits imposed by Act 44, Pennsylvania’s 2024 probation reform law, in the context of multiple technical violations addressed at a single hearing.

The Facts of Goodwin

In August 2022, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property in Monroe County, PA. The charges arose from a series of burglaries at auto shops. At the time of his arrest, he was already on bail for crimes committed in 2021. He was sentenced in the earlier case to one month to one year of incarceration followed by two years of probation. He was paroled in October 2022.

In August 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty in the Monroe County case to burglary, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. In November 2023, he was sentenced to five years of restrictive probation, a consecutive two-year period of probation, and a fine. The restrictive condition of his five-year probation was the successful completion of the two-week Outmate Program at the Monroe County Correctional Facility when directed by the Monroe County Probation Office.

After sentencing, the defendant met with his probation officer and was provided with the rules of probation. His probation was subsequently transferred to Allegheny County. However, the defendant then left Allegheny County and traveled to North Carolina without seeking or receiving permission from the Commonwealth and without advising his probation officer of the move. His probation officer did not learn of this until three weeks later, when the defendant’s mother revealed his location.

Rather than immediately filing a violation petition, the probation officer attempted to transfer the defendant’s case to North Carolina. North Carolina declined to accept the transfer because the defendant’s mother, whose residence was the proposed home plan, said the defendant could not reside with her. The probation officer then directed the defendant to return to Pennsylvania to work out a solution, but the defendant did not return voluntarily.

In April 2024, the Commonwealth filed a violation of probation petition alleging four violations: failure to report to the Probation Department, failure to comply with criminal laws (based on a simple assault charge in Allegheny County), leaving the Commonwealth without permission and failing to return, and failure to complete the Outmate Program.

The defendant failed to appear for his violation hearing, and the court issued a bench warrant. He was eventually arrested in North Carolina, initially declined extradition, but then reversed course and waived extradition on June 11, 2024, the same day the Act 44 probation reform amendments became effective. At the violation hearing, the Commonwealth withdrew the violation based on the new arrest, and the defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and counseled admission to the three remaining technical violations. The court revoked probation and sentenced the defendant to one to two years of incarceration in a state correctional facility.

The Superior Court's Analysis

The Superior Court addressed three issues on appeal. First, it considered whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of probation. Second and third, it addressed whether the trial court had the statutory authority to impose total confinement and whether the sentence was illegal under the graduated sentencing provisions of Act 44.

Revocation Was Supported by the Evidence

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the defendant committed flagrant technical violations. The VOP court specifically found the defendant did not establish that he was homeless to the extent that he could not comply with the terms of his probation. The court noted the defendant’s inconsistent statements about his living situation, his deliberate choice not to return to Pennsylvania to participate in the Outmate Program despite his probation officer’s fair offer to not violate him if he returned, and his initial refusal to waive extradition. The Superior Court concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding the violations and determining that the defendant’s conduct was not merely a consequence of homelessness.

Total Confinement Was Authorized

The Superior Court also upheld the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence of total confinement. Applying the newly effective Section 9771(c), the court found the defendant had absconded and could not be safely diverted from total confinement through less restrictive means. The record supported this finding. The defendant left the Commonwealth without permission, failed to contact his probation officer, refused to return when directed, and initially refused extradition.

The Sentence Was Illegal Under Act 44’s Graduated Scheme

However, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court erred as a matter of law in imposing a one-to-two-year prison sentence. This is the critical holding of the case.

Under the amended Section 9771(c)(2), when a court imposes total confinement for technical probation violations, it must follow a graduated sentencing scheme: a maximum of 14 days for a first technical violation, a maximum of 30 days for a second, and for a third or subsequent violation, the court may impose any sentencing alternative available at initial sentencing. The purpose of this scheme is to embody a recidivist philosophy: to give a probationer the opportunity to reform his or her conduct before receiving a more severe sentence for repeated violations.

The trial court treated the defendant’s three technical violations as three separate violations and imposed a sentence for a “third or subsequent” violation. The Superior Court, agreeing with both the defendant and the Commonwealth, held that this was error. Because all three violations were presented to the court at the same first hearing, the recidivist philosophy required that they be treated as a first technical violation. To allow the court to stack three maximum sentences at a single hearing would be absurd and contrary to the legislature's intent in passing Act 44.

The Superior Court noted that the en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Seals, 2026 PA Super 29, had held that a claim that a court failed to follow the limitations in Section 9771(c) raises a challenge to the legality of the sentence. Accordingly, it vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with Section 9771(c)(2), which limits a first technical violation to a maximum of 14 days.

Interestingly, the court observed in a footnote that this new statutory framework may not achieve its intended goal of reducing incarceration for technical violations. The court suggested the graduated scheme may actually create a disincentive for probation officers to exercise discretion and handle minor violations informally, instead pressuring them to initiate court proceedings for every technical violation in order to build a record for enhanced sentencing later.

The Takeaway

Goodwin is an important decision for anyone on probation in Pennsylvania. The case makes clear that under Act 44, a trial court cannot circumvent the graduated sentencing limits by treating multiple technical violations from a single hearing as separate violations for sentencing purposes. If this is a defendant’s first violation hearing, the maximum sentence for technical violations is 14 days, regardless of how many individual technical violations are found at that hearing.

This case also reinforces that Act 44 challenges are legality-of-sentence claims that cannot be waived and may be raised at any time. If you or someone you know has received a sentence for technical probation violations that exceeds the Act 44 limits, the sentence may be illegal and subject to challenge on appeal.

Facing Criminal Charges or a Wrongful Conviction?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

If you or a loved one has been wrongfully convicted or believes that the prosecution withheld evidence in your case, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers are typically available for same-day phone consultations and in-person meetings so that we can begin investigating your case, obtaining exculpatory evidence, and planning your defense. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session.

PA Superior Court: Conditions Violated Must Actually Be Part of County Probation or Parole Sentence for Defendant to Be Found in Violation of Probation

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Baldassano, 2025 PA Super 26, holding that the trial court improperly found the defendant in violation of county parole conditions which were never part of the defendant’s sentence. The Superior Court therefore vacated the defendant’s incarceration sentence and released him.

The Facts of Baldassano

The defendant was convicted of terroristic threats, stalking, and harassment after years of allegedly harassing a former college acquaintance. The charges stemmed from a pattern of anonymous phone calls, social media impersonation, and threats against the complainant and her family. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of thirty days to four years’ incarceration with immediate parole at his minimum sentence along with certain conditions.

The parole conditions required:

1. A drug and alcohol evaluation and compliance with any treatment recommendations.

2. Continued mental health treatment.

3. Two years of active supervision followed by two years of inactive supervision, during which the court specifically ordered that he was only required to avoid contact with the victim and was not required to comply with any other probation department rules and regulations.

Parole Violation Allegation and Revocation

While the defendant was serving the “inactive supervision” portion of the county parole, the Lebanon County Department of Probation sought to revoke his parole, alleging:

• Positive drug tests and possession of controlled substances.

• A new criminal arrest.

At the defendant’s Gagnon II hearing, the defense attorney moved to dismiss the probation violation, arguing that neither condition applied to the defendant given the terms of the inactive supervision. The trial court dismissed the drug-related violation but revoked the defendant’s parole based solely on the new criminal charge. The trial court recommitted the defendant to serve the balance of his original sentence with parole eligibility after eighteen months. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order and found that the trial court erred in revoking parole. The Superior Court concluded that per the specific terms of the trial court’s sentencing order, the defendant was simply not subject to any conditions other than the requirement that he not have contact with the complainant. The Court found:

• By the explicit terms of the sentencing order, after two years, the defendant was not subject to the normal county probation department rules and regulations, which included the requirement not to commit new offenses.

• While committing a new crime typically warrants parole revocation in almost every case, it must be based on an actual parole condition to which the defendant was subject. Here, his only enforceable condition in the last two years of the sentence was to avoid contact with the complainant.

• Because the Commonwealth and probation department had only pursued revocation based on new charges (and not a violation of any of the three enumerated parole conditions that applied during his sentence), the trial court lacked legal grounds to revoke his parole even though new arrests are usually the basis for probation or parole revocation.

The Superior Court therefore vacated the order sentencing the defendant to prison and remanded for further proceedings.

The Takeaway

In many cases, it is common for defense counsel to concede a probation or parole violation and focus on obtaining a light sentence such as more probation or parole or a short period of incarceration. It is important, however, to actually read the judgment of sentence and sentencing transcript in order to make sure that any alleged conditions of supervision are actually part of the sentence. If the probation or parole department has moved to hold a defendant in violation of a condition that does not exist, then the defendant should not be found in violation.

In order for there to be a probation violation, the conditions which were allegedly violated must have been explicitly stated on the record at the time of sentencing. They cannot be expanded unilaterally by probation officers beyond what the sentencing judge ordered without notice and a hearing. Notably, this rule does not always apply - defendants on state parole and state supervised probation may have fewer protections than defendants on county probation or parole because certain state statutes and regulations allow the parole board to impose some conditions of supervision.

Even serious new charges cannot justify revocation if the probation or parole sentence specifically limits the conditions of probation or parole such that it does not require the probationer to avoid getting arrested. This is an unusual case because this type of probation or parole is rare, but it is still important for the defense attorney to carefully review the record when representing someone who has been charged with a violation of probation or parole.

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in state or federal court in Pennsylvania? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Legislature Reforms Probation to Limit Jail for Technical Violations and Encourage Early Termination of Probation

The Pennsylvania legislature recently passed a probation reform bill which improves the conditions of probation and provides some protections to defendants under many circumstances. The bill did not go as far as advocates wanted, but it does implement some meaningful changes to probation in Pennsylvania. The governor signed Senate Bill 838 into law at the end of December 2023, and it is important to be familiar with the changes created by the new law. Learn more.

PA Supreme Court: Parole Agents May Add Conditions of Supervision, Probation Officers May Not

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Koger, holding that the statutes governing state parole differ from those governing probation and allow parole agents to add conditions of supervision that were not included as part of the original sentencing order. This means that in some ways, probation provides more protections than parole. A probationer may not be convicted of violating probation conditions which were not ordered by the sentencing judge on the record at the time of sentencing, but a parolee may be found in violation of parole for violating conditions which were later imposed by the supervising parole agent.

The Facts of Koger

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and criminal use of a communications facility. The charges stemmed from an incident in which his daughter found contraband images on his cell phone. He pleaded guilty in state court and received a sentence of 8 - 23 months’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation. The court also ordered him to have no contact with any of the victims or persons displayed in the images, to submit to a drug and alcohol evaluation, to complete any recommended treatment, perform 100 hours of community service, and complete sexual offender counseling.

The court did not advise the defendant of the general conditions of probation or parole at the time of sentencing. Instead, a probation officer explained the general conditions of Washington County, PA’s probation and parole immediately following the sentencing hearing. None of those conditions were put on the record or placed in the sentencing order.

As the defendant had already served the minimum sentence, the court immediately paroled him. A few weeks later, the defendant violated his parole by possessing pornographic images. The trial court revoked his parole and sentenced him to his back time with work release for the parole violation. It resentenced him to another three years’ probation to run consecutively on the CUCF charge.

Following his release, the Commonwealth again charged him with violating his probation and/or parole. This time, the Commonwealth alleged that he violated some of the conditions of probation and parole which were not put on the record at the time of sentencing but were instead explained by the probation officer following sentencing. For example, the Commonwealth charged him with failing to report and consent to searches, violating criminal laws, committing assaultive, threatening, or harassing behavior, and failing to avoid unlawful and disreputable places.

Ultimately, the alleged violations stemmed from an incident in which the probation officers conducted a home visit and asked to search the defendant’s home. He refused to let them search the phone, they had to use force to detain him, and when they searched the phone, they found explicit chats between the defendant and a user who identified themselves as a 15-year-old female. They also found more illegal pornography. Finally, the defendant also threatened the probation officer as the officer dropped him off at the jail.

The trial court found that the defendant violated his parole and probation by committing technical violations. It revoked both the probation and parole and sentenced him to his back time for the parole violation and 1 - 3 years’ incarceration for the probation violation.

The defendant appealed, challenging both the legality of the sentence and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of probation and parole. The Superior Court remanded, finding that the record did not contain sufficient evidence as to whether the conditions of probation and parole were made part of the sentencing order and proceeding. The trial court issued a supplemental opinion conceding that the conditions were not part of the sentencing proceedings. The Superior Court therefore reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court could not find the defendant in violation of probation and/or parole conditions which were not imposed at the time of sentencing. The Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court previously ruled in Commonwealth v. Foster that conditions of probation must be made part of the record at sentencing or a defendant cannot be charged with violating them. The issue in this case, however, was whether the same rules apply to a potential parole violation or whether parole agents/officers may impose conditions after sentencing. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth, finding that parole is different from probation and parole agents may add their own conditions even where the trial court has not specifically included those conditions in the sentencing order or put them on the record.

When it comes to probation, the statute directs that the court shall attach reasonable conditions . . . as it deems necessary to assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life. A sentencing court may impose somewhat general conditions and then leave it to the probation officers to provide more specifics, but the basic conditions must be imposed by the sentencing court.

The statute, however, does not mention parole. Instead, the only relevant statute directs that when imposing a county sentence, the sentencing court shall place the inmate in the charge of and under the supervision of a designated probation officer. Therefore, the probation officer may decide the conditions of supervision during county parole.

State parole is also different as the Prisons and Parole Code authorizes the Parole Board to make general rules for the conduct of parolees and establish special conditions for supervision. The parole statute specifically authorizes the board to establish the conditions of supervision. Thus, the statutes require the sentencing judge to decide the conditions for probation, but it allows much more discretion to a state parole agent or county parole officer.

Therefore, the trial court properly found the defendant in violation of his county parole even though the conditions were imposed by a probation officer rather than the court. The probation violation was illegal, however, because the conditions for probation were not decided by the judge. This results in significant differences between probation and parole. For parole, the parole agent or officer may decide the conditions of supervision. But for probation, any conditions must be placed on the record at the time of sentencing.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.