Com. v. Garland, K.
Com. v. Garland, K. No. 1646 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Kendall Garland pleaded no contest in 2002 to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors; sentenced to 2.5–6 years plus nine years reporting probation with mandated sex-offender treatment and polygraph testing at Joseph J. Peters Institute (JJP).
- Probation conditions were reiterated in 2007 and 2011; in July 2012 Garland signed standard sex-offender conditions requiring evaluation, compliance with treatment recommendations (including polygraphs), and authorization for information sharing.
- In 2014 Garland was discharged from JJP after failing a therapeutic polygraph about sexual contact with minors and prostitutes; probation officers also reported prior unsuccessful treatment attempts, missed meetings, alleged dishonesty about a storage unit/computer, and other compliance concerns.
- At the revocation hearing the only witness was a Board of Probation & Parole agent who testified about the discharge and other supervision issues; Garland disputed the characterization of events and contended he answered the polygraph truthfully and had not committed new offenses.
- The trial court revoked probation, sentenced Garland to 1–2 years’ incarceration plus five years reporting probation, and Garland appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence to support revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garland) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke probation | Polygraph failure and a single officer's testimony are insufficient; no new crimes alleged; he remained willing to continue treatment | Polygraph-based discharge plus other supervision failures (missed meetings, dishonesty, repeated treatment failures) suffice under the lower revocation standard | Affirmed: revocation upheld — discharge after therapeutic polygraph and cumulative supervision failures supported revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency at revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Mullins, 918 A.2d 82 (Pa. 2007) (revocation hearing purpose and probation as a privilege)
- Commonwealth v. A.R., 990 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2010) (therapeutic polygraph results admissible as background to explain program actions; revocation may be supported by discharge for inability to progress in treatment)
- Commonwealth v. A.R., 80 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2013) (Supreme Court aff’r — therapeutic polygraph admissible to explain treatment decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Shrawder, 940 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2007) (therapeutic polygraph as an essential treatment tool)
- Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2007) (technical violations can support revocation when flagrant and showing inability to reform)