Getting Arrested Is Not a Probation Violation in PA

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Is Getting Arrested a Probation Violation? 

The Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Moriarty, finding that violation of probation counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the trial court’s finding that the defendant violated his probation solely by incurring an arrest on new charges. Moriarty involved the appeal of a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) Petition. 

Commonwealth v. Moriarty

In Moriarty, the defendant first pleaded guilty to Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Resisting Arrest. Pursuant to the negotiations, the trial court sentenced the defendant to one to twenty-three months and twenty nine days of incarceration on the REAP charge and one year of consecutive probation on the Resisting Arrest charge. The court then immediately paroled the defendant, thereby releasing him from custody. The terms of the probation and parole provided that he would commit a violation thereof by committing any other crimes. 

Daisy Kates Motions

The defendant was subsequently arrested on a new case and charged with Aggravated Assault and Terroristic Threats. The defendant’s back judge immediately lodged a probation detainer and appointed a defense attorney to represent the defendant. The Commonwealth, likely fearing it would not be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, filed a motion to revoke probation prior to the resolution of the defendant’s new Aggravated Assault case. This type of motion is called a “Daisy Kates” motion. A Daisy Kates motion asks the back judge to find the defendant in violation even though the defendant has not yet been convicted in the new case.

The constitutionality of these motions is currently debatable in light of the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Arter, but the defense failed to raise that issue in this case. The burden of proof in these types of probation hearings is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of a criminal trial. Instead, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant committed the crimes charged only by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to proceed in this manner when they have concerns that they may not be able to obtain a conviction at trial. These hearings are outrageously unfair both because the burden of proof is lower and the judge who will rule on the defendant’s guilt knows that the defendant has committed crimes previously and is on probation. Thus, the judge is already prejudiced against the defendant prior to hearing the evidence because the defendant was on the judge’s probation at the time that the defendant picked up the new case. 

The probation court scheduled a Daisy Kates hearing while the new charges were still pending against the defendant. At the hearing, the defendant’s back judge asked defense counsel if he wished to say anything on behalf of the defendant. Counsel responded that he had consulted with his client and the probation department and that he agreed with the actions that would be taken. In other words, counsel agreed that the defendant should be found in violation of his probation and parole. The judge asked the defendant if he acknowledged the violations of his probation or parole, and defense counsel interjected that the violations were that he had been arrested on new charges. The defendant agreed, so the court found him in violation of his probation and parole and sentenced him to his back time followed by an additional year of probation on the Resisting Arrest charge.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Of course, the defendant was eventually acquitted in the new Aggravated Assault and Terroristic Threats case which served as the basis for the supposed probation violation. The defendant promptly filed motions seeking immediate parole, reconsideration of his sentence, and a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition alleging that probation counsel had been ineffective in failing to challenge the alleged probation violation. The court granted the motion for immediate parole but denied the other motions, including the PCRA Petition. The defendant appealed.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Superior Court found that probation counsel had in fact provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge the alleged probation violation. Counsel was ineffective because the Commonwealth proved only that the defendant had been arrested on new charges and waived the preliminary hearing on those charges.

In order to win a PCRA based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that counsel was ineffective, counsel lacked a reasonable, strategic basis for the actions taken in the representation, and that the petitioner was prejudiced due to the counsel’s failures. Here, the Superior Court concluded that counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the probation violation.

An Arrest Is Not a Probation Violation

First, the Superior Court noted that an arrest, standing alone, does not constitute a probation or parole violation under Pennsylvania law. This is true even where a defendant waives the preliminary hearing as a preliminary hearing does not end in a finding of guilt. Instead, the Commonwealth must introduce at least some evidence beyond the mere arrest and waiver of a preliminary hearing to show that a violation of probation occurred. Typically, the Commonwealth must call at least some live witnesses to show that the defendant committed a crime. Here, the Commonwealth did not introduce any other evidence, so counsel was ineffective in conceding a probation violation based on an arrest alone.

Second, the Court held that the defense lawyer had no reasonable, strategic basis for failing to challenge the violation. Although defense counsel testified that he had recommended conceding the violation so that the defendant would be sentenced and thereby become eligible for work release, it actually turned out that the defendant was not eligible for work release under the general terms of work release enacted by the County Prison. Thus, the defendant gained nothing other than a 23 month jail sentence by failing to fight the alleged probation violation.

Third, the Court held that the defendant was prejudiced because he was sentenced to jail. Had the defendant asked the trial court to defer the probation violation hearing until the new case was resolved or challenged the Commonwealth’s ability to prove that he committed a crime, the defendant may have been released without any additional sentence. Notably, the Court suggested that it is preferable that probation violation hearings not take place until new charges are resolved because of the possibility that a defendant could be found in violation at a Daisy Kates hearing for committing a crime for which the defendant will later be acquitted at trial.

Given that the defendant established all three prongs of the test, the Superior Court granted the PCRA and vacated the trial court’s order revoking probation and re-sentencing him. The Superior Court went further and found that the defendant did not violate his probation. Therefore, it ordered the trial court to re-instate the original sentence and provide the defendant with time credit towards that sentence for the time spent in custody.

Award-Winning Philadelphia Probation Violation Lawyers

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you or a loved one are facing a potential probation violation or probation detainer, we can help. In many cases, it may be possible to have the detainer lifted pending the resolution of a new case or to seek alternatives to incarceration for established violations of probation. Our Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully helped thousands of clients navigate Gagnon I and Gagnon II probation hearings. We are also able to provide sueprior We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding advocate today.

Hearsay Is Not Ordinarily Admissible at a Violation of Probation Hearing

Commonwealth v. Godson - Is Hearsay Admissible During a Probation Violation Hearing?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Godson, reaffirming prior holdings in which the courts have held that hearsay is not ordinarily admissible at a violation of probation hearing. In Godson, which is an unpublished opinion, the Court recognized the general rule in Pennsylvania that in order for hearsay to be admissible at a violation of probation or Gagnon II hearing, the Commonwealth must show "good cause." 

In Godson, the defendant originally entered a guilty plea to charges of Aggravated Assault by Prisoner. He received a sentence of 6-23 months of incarceration followed by two years of reporting probation. The defendant quickly violated that probation in a number of different ways, including by failing to participate in court-ordered mental health treatment. In response, the probation officer moved to revoke his probation, and the trial court held a violation of probation hearing. 

At the hearing, the court heard from a staff member from the mental health facility at which the defendant had sporadically obtained treatment. The staff member testified that he learned from other staff members that the defendant had been disruptive and attempted to escape from the facility. The defendant broke a window as part of his attempted escape. Although the staff member who testified at the hearing had no personal knowledge of the broken window or attempted escape, the trial judge revoked the defendant's probation, re-sentenced him, and ordered that the defendant pay restitution for the cost of the fixing the broken window. 

The Appeal of the Violation of Probation Sentence 

The defendant appealed, and the Superior Court reversed the restitution order. The Superior Court noted that it is well-settled that the Confrontation Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits the use of hearsay testimony against a defendant at a probation hearing without a finding by the trial court of good cause. Here, the parties agreed that the trial judge failed to make any finding with respect to whether there was good cause for allowing the staff member who had no personal knowledge to testify about the broken window and the cost of replacing it. Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded it for further proceedings.  

The Rule Against Hearsay at a Probation Hearing 

The rule against hearsay at a probation revocation hearing is extremely important. Prosecutors and probation officers in Philadelphia often attempt to introduce hearsay at Gagnon II hearings as it is much simpler and easier for them than actually requiring live witnesses to appear. This is particularly true in cases where defendants are under supervision for convictions relating to domestic violence. In domestic violence cases, it is not uncommon for the problems which led to the defendant's criminal charges to continue even after he or she has been put on probation. In some cases, the complainant from the original case will call the probation officer and make new accusations, and the probation officer will then bring those accusations to the judge without asking the complainant to appear for the hearing. It is fundamentally unfair for a defendant to face a probation violation without having the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser. Therefore, this rule protects the rights of the defendant to challenge the accusations against him or her in open court and makes sure that the judge does not have to make a ruling based entirely on hearsay.

Probation Violation? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Probation Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or a potential violation of probation, we can help. We are award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers with the experience, skill, and expertise necessary to fight for you and protect your rights. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges and in dealing with probation violations and probation detainers. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today. 

PA Supreme Court: Parole Agents May Frisk You Even If You Are Not On Parole

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Mathis, holding that a parole agent may detain and frisk a non-parolee visitor to the parolee’s home while performing a routine home inspection if the parole agent acts on reasonable suspicion that the visitor is engaged in criminal activity and armed.

Commonwealth v. Mathis - Can a Parole Agent Search Someone Who Is Not On Parole During a Routine Home Visit? 

In Mathis, parole agents conducted a routine check of a parolee’s home which was located in a high crime area in Dauphin County. When they arrived, they immediately recognized the strong odor of marijuana throughout the home. As they walked through the house, they observed the defendant, Mathis, receiving a hair cut from the parolee who they were there to check up on. The parolee identified the parole agents to the defendant, and the agents then questioned the parolee as to why the house smelled like marijuana. The agents also found an ashtray full of marijuana roaches in the front room, but they did not see anyone smoking marijuana. 

While one of the agents questioned the parolee, the other agent monitored Mathis. Mathis repeatedly got up from his chair and walked to the kitchen, apparently checking text messages on his cell phone. The parole agents asked him to stop using the cell phone while they were there because he seemed nervous. They asked him to leave until they finished speaking with the parolee. Mathis began to leave, and as he gathered his belongings, one of the agents noticed that he picked up his jacket as if holding it up to his body like a football or a baby. Mathis appeared to try to put his body in between the agents and the jacket, and he continued to hold it in a strange manner. The agents also noticed a bulge coming from the jacket which was roughly the size and shape of a gun. 

The agents became concerned for their safety, so they asked Mathis if they could pat him down. He refused, but one of the agents reached out and touched the jacket. The agent immediately felt what he believed to be a firearm. They then handcuffed Mathis, patted him down, recovered a bag of marijuana from between his feet, and recovered a handgun from the jacket. Because Mathis was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior criminal record, the agents called the police. The police arrived, recovered the gun, and charged Mathis with gun charges, marijuana charges, and possessing drug paraphernalia.

Motion to Suppress

Mathis filed a pretrial motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the parole agents had no right to search him because he was not on parole. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, found him guilty of drug possession and gun possession, and sentenced him to thirty-two to sixty-four month’s imprisonment. Mathis appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the decision of the Superior Court. The Court concluded that parole agents may conduct a Terry frisk under these circumstances for their own safety. Although parole agents may not act as police officers with respect to non-offenders or private citizens, they do have the right to protect themselves.

Parole agents are required to supervise offenders in part by conducting routine, unannounced home visits, thus risking exposure to a variety of potentially dangerous unknowns. Interactions with non-offenders are often going to occur during home visits, and parole agents have an obligation to make sure that the parolee is not living or associating with people who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses.

Parole agents are also legally classified as “peace officers,” giving them the power to make a lawful arrest upon reasonable suspicion of a felony and the authority to use deadly force to protect themselves and carry firearms. Because a parole agent has the authority to use deadly force for the protection of himself or herself and others, the agent has the authority to prevent the need for deadly force in the first place by conducting a Terry frisk when necessary.

Finally, the Court noted that the purpose of the Terry frisk is not to conduct an investigation or find evidence; instead, it is merely to check for deadly weapons so that the officer can do his or her job without fear of bodily injury. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that a parole agent may conduct a frisk for weapons so long as the agent has reasonable suspicion to do so. Reasonable suspicion requires “specific and articulable facts” that criminal activity is afoot, and the authority to frisk also requires that the officer or agent have reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 

There Are Still Limits On Probation and Parole Searches

Unfortunately, the Mathis Court's decision serves to eliminate important privacy rights for anyone who associates with someone who is on state parole. If someone has the bad luck to be present at a parolee's residence when agents show up to conduct an unannounced search, that person will now be at risk of being searched by parole agents despite the fact that they are not even on parole. This is particuclarly true for anyone who lives with someone who is on state parole; that person will now have substantailly reduced privacy rights just by virtue of who they live with. However, some protections remain in that the parole agents are still required to have reasonable suspicion and cannot conduct a search for general investigatory purposes. Therefore, motions to suppress will likely still be brought in many of these cases.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended thousands of cases. We offer a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attoreny today. 

Get a Probation Detainer Lifted in Philadelphia

Motion to Lift Detainer: Frequently Asked Questions about Probation Detainers in Philadelphia, PA

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire explains probation detainers and the motion to lift a detainer.

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC may be able to help you get a probation detainer lifted. Our attorneys have represented clients who have been arrested for new charges while on probation. In some cases, we have been able to get the probation judge (“the back judge”) to quickly lift the detainer by filing a motion to lift the detainer. If you do not take action, you will remain in custody until your case is resolved, which could take a year or more. Call 267-225-2545 today for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session and to discuss the possibility of getting a detainer lifted while you are still facing new charges.

As criminal defense attorneys, we frequently receive questions from clients about probation issues. Some of the most common questions we receive are:

1) What is a probation detainer?

Demetra Mehta, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Lawyer

A probation detainer is an order from the defendant’s probation judge directing the prison system not to release the defendant until the defendant sees the judge. When a person who is on probation for a previous offense is arrested on new charges, in most cases, the defendant’s probation officer will lodge a detainer when the defendant goes through preliminary arraignment. The order prevents the defendant from being released even if the defendant is able to make bail. If the defendant does not retain counsel to address the probation issue first, the judge's order will remain in effect and the defendant will remain in custody until the new case is resolved. If the defendant beats the new case, then the defendant will likely be released without a hearing if there are no other probation violations. If the defendant is found guilty of something in the new case, then the defendant will have a probation violation hearing scheduled within a few weeks in front of the probation judge. At that hearing, the judge will find the defendant in violation and decide on a new sentence for the violation. The sentence could range from more probation to jail time.

2) How do I get a detainer lifted?

In some cases, it is possible to have the probation judge lift the detainer order and allow the defendant to fight the new charges while out on bail. Once a probation detainer has lodged against the defendant, the defendant's probation officer typically cannot lift it without the supervising judge's permission. Therefore, getting a detainer lifted will typically require retaining counsel to file a motion to lift the detainer. The motion to lift the detainer is a written motion which will set out the history of the defendant’s probation, the allegations in the new case, and the reasons why the defendant should be permitted to fight the charges from the street instead of from custody.

Judges are often reluctant to lift probation detainers because they are only lodged against defendants who were already on probation when they were arrested for a new case. However, our attorneys may be able to gather enough mitigation information about you or your loved one or information that shows that the Commonwealth’s evidence in the new case is weak that we can convince the judge to lift the order pending trial. For example, if a defendant who is on probation for drugs is arrested for a new misdemeanor drug case, we may be able to convince a judge to release the defendant if we can show that the defendant was working, supporting family members, and attending drug treatment. This is even more likely if we are able to arrange for the defendant to enter a program upon his or her release. Each case is different, and our attorneys offer a free criminal defense strategy session at which we can discuss the likelihood of success in filing a motion to get a detainer lifted. 

3) How long does it take to get a detainer lifted?

Once we are retained to file a motion to lift a detainer, there is no set time period in which the probation judge must schedule a hearing on the motion. Our probation lawyers will typically be able to file the motion within a day or two of being retained. The rest of the time table is then dependent on the court system. The probation judge could deny the motion without a hearing, schedule a hearing, or lift the detainer without a hearing. In most Philadelphia cases, it is often possible to get a hearing scheduled within a week or two. If the motion to lift the detainer is successful and the judge agrees to lift the order, then the defendant could be released on the day of the hearing. In the suburban counties, it could take one or two months to schedule a detainer hearing. Each judge is different, and the judges have a significant amount of discretion in terms of if and when they schedule probation cases. However, in many cases, we are able to convince the judge to schedule a hearing quickly and hear the case on the merits.

4) Will the judge lift the detainer?

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Detainer Lawyer

There is never any guarantee as to whether a judge will lift a detainer. Typically, when either the probation case or new case is for charges which are not particularly serious or when there is some compelling mitigation evidence in the defendant’s background, the odds of winning a motion are greater. If the defendant has a lot of community support and friends and family who will attend the hearing, then the odds of getting a detainer lifted substantially increase. Likewise, if we can show that the defendant was working, attending some kind of treatment, or has health issues, those are all factors that could lead to a successful motion. The likelihood of success depends on the defendant’s background, the nature of the new and old charges, and also on the judge who is supervising the defendant’s probation. We can never guarantee that a detainer will be lifted, but in many cases, it is worth filing the motion and asking the judge for a hearing. In many cases, the probation judge will release the defendant pending trial if the defendant retains counsel and files a motion. 

5) What if the judge won’t lift my detainer?

If the judge will not lift the detainer, then the defendant will remain in custody until the new charges are resolved or the defendant serves the maximum possible sentence on the probation case. In some instances, if there is a significant change in circumstances during the course of the case, then it may be possible to ask the back judge to reconsider. For example, if felony charges are later dismissed and the defendant is left facing only misdemeanor charges, it may be worth asking the probation judge to reconsider an initial ruling denying a motion to lift a detainer. Although we cannot guarantee that a motion will be successful, we can guarantee that if you do not file one, you will remain in custody until the new case is over. 

6) Should I pay my bail if I have a detainer?

If you have a detainer, you should not pay your bail. If you pay your bail, you will not receive any time credit for the time spent in custody on the new case. You will receive time credit only for the probation case, meaning that if you are ultimately convicted of the new case and sentenced to a period of incarceration, you will not receive any credit for the time which you spent in custody prior to sentencing. If you pay your bail and you have a detainer or warrant from a different jurisdiction, you would typically be transferred to the other jurisdiction, which could make it more difficult to resolve the new case as there are often transportation issues. 

7) What are the odds that the judge will lift the detainer?

It is never possible to guarantee that any particular detainer will be lifted, and it is often difficult to make a prediction as to the exact chances of success. However, our attorneys have represented numerous clients in probation matters and successfully had detainers lifted in a number of cases. Examples of successful probation case outcomes include: 

Commonwealth v. A.W. - Motion for Reconsideration of Custdoail VOP Sentence Granted; Client Immediately Paroled to Treatment

The judge found A.W. in technical violation of probation for theft and drug possession while a different attorney represented A.W.. The judge sentenced A.W. to 11.5 - 23 months in the county jail. The client retained Goldstein Mehta LLC within ten days of the sentence, and our attorneys immediately filed a motion to reconsider the VOP sentence within ten days as required by the rules. The back judge quickly scheduled a hearing on the Motion to Reconsider, and prior to the hearing, we were able to work with the client's family to locate a treatment facility which A.W. could attend if released. Once our attorneys presented the judge with alternative treatment options, the judge reconsidered the sentence and granted immediate parole to treatment. We were able to help A.W. avoid a lengthy jail sentence in the county jail. 

Commonwealth v. Z.B. – Detainer Lifted and Client Sentenced to Time Served on Section 17 Detainer

The client previously pleaded no contest to misdemeanor drug charges as part of a Section 17 diversionary program in Montgomery County. After getting arrested again in a different jurisdiction, the Montgomery County probation officer took Z.B. into custody and lodged a probation detainer. The client retained Goldstein Mehta LLC, and our defense attorneys immediately filed a Motion to Lift the Detainer, arguing that Section 17 probation does not give the judge the authority to lodge a probation detainer. Instead, the judge must schedule a hearing and either continue the probation or impose a judgment of sentence.

In this case, the judge had already scheduled a hearing that was still months away. After receiving the motion and recognizing that the law was unclear as to whether Section 17 probation provides the authority to lodge a detainer, the judge quickly moved the probation violation hearing up by two months. The client then stipulated to the probation violation in exchange for a time served sentence and was released shortly thereafter. By filing a creative motion on the client’s behalf, our defense lawyers were able to save the client months in the county prison.  

Commonwealth v. J.B. – Probation Detainer Lifted, Full Acquittal Obtained in Domestic Assault Case

Police charged J.B. with Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and other related charges in the Philadelphia Municipal Court for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. J.B. was on probation for similar charges, so the probation officer took him into custody and lodged a probation detainer. If J.B. had done nothing, he would have had to stay in jail for months until the new case was resolved. Fortunately, J.B. retained Zak T. Goldstein, Esq., and our defense lawyers promptly filed a Motion to Lift the Probation Detainer with the client’s back judge. By putting together a thorough mitigation packet which showed J.B.'s exemplary work record, successful compliance with probation other than the new charges, and extensive family and community ties, we were able to have J.B. released so that he could fight the case from the street. 

Attorney Goldstein then obtained a full acquittal for J.B. at trial. By cross-examining the complainant on the inconsistencies between her testimony at trial and the statement she had given to police and showing that she had a motive to lie, our attorneys were able to convince the trial judge that the complainant should not be believed. This was particularly true in light of the complainant’s lack of visible injuries and the fantastical nature of her allegations. Accordingly, our criminal defense attorneys successfully had the client’s probation detainer lifted and then obtained a full acquittal at trial.    

Commonwealth v. M.M. - M.M. was arrested on a potential technical probation violation. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to lift the detainer and had a hearing scheduled within a week. At the hearing, our defense lawyers convinced M.M.'s back judge to find that M.M. had not violated the terms of his supervision. The client was immediately released the same day.

Our Philadelphia Detainer Lawyers Can Help

Probation Detainer Lawyers

If you or are loved one are dealing with the consequences of a probation detainer, call 267-225-2545 today for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers. We have successfully defended thousands of cases and successfully moved to have detainers lifted on numerous occasions. Do not just assume that you or your loved one must remain in jail until the new case is resolved. We can help you evaluate the merits and likelihood of success in filing a motion, and we may be able to help you or your loved one get out of jail. 

---

Speak with a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

---