The Superior Court reversed a probation revocation because the record did not establish the conditions imposed at sentencing, leaving supervision agents without a proven foundation for the alleged violations.
The Superior Court upheld an increased drug sentence based on a threatening letter sent after the original hearing, while vacating a no-further-penalty sentence on a merged possession count.
The Superior Court vacated five probation revocations and an aggregate eight-to-sixteen-year sentence after reversal of the contempt conviction that supplied the direct violation.
The Superior Court preserved a restitution contempt finding but reversed a six-month jail sanction because the court did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zehr could pay the $3,000 purge amount.
The Superior Court vacated a hit-and-run sentence because the trial court neither acknowledged that incarceration departed from the probationary guideline range nor gave a contemporaneous justification.
The Superior Court affirmed attempted-murder and related convictions, holding that circumstantial identification evidence and shots directed toward an officer’s torso supported the verdict.
The Superior Court held that a defendant who knew his two-week trial term and stopped communicating with counsel waived his right to attend, but it vacated an illegal minimum sentence.
The Superior Court held that Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Commission could apply the domestic-violence enhancement even when no minor witnessed the assault.
In a precedential ruling, the Superior Court held that an objection to an unreasonably delayed probation-revocation petition does not implicate sentence legality and can be waived.
The Superior Court vacated a sentence more than six years below the mitigated guideline range because the record did not support the trial court’s reasons for immediate parole and house arrest.
The Superior Court upheld a caretaker’s convictions for theft by deception and financial exploitation of an older adult based on checks obtained beyond her agreed compensation.
The Superior Court held that a probation department petition did not preserve a defendant’s separate request for discretionary early termination under Section 9771.