Com. v. Giliam, C., 233 A.3d 863

Appellant Caliph Giliam pled guilty to terroristic threats and was sentenced to 3 years probation with a GED requirement on July 11, 2016.
Six days later he was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, and resisting arrest based on an incident in which an officer testified Giliam assaulted his girlfriend and bit the officer’s gloved finger.
The Commonwealth sought and the trial court held a violation-of-probation (VOP) hearing prior to trial on the new charges; the VOP court found the officer credible, revoked probation, and later sentenced Giliam to 2½–5 years’ imprisonment after a mental-health evaluation.
While this appeal was pending, Giliam was acquitted at a bench trial of the new criminal charges that had formed the sole basis for the VOP.
The Superior Court held that because the VOP was based solely on the now-acquitted charges, no probation violation was proved and the revocation sentence was void; the judgment of sentence was vacated and the case remanded for possible credit for time served.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a VOP and sentence based entirely on conduct for which the probationer was later acquitted must be vacated	Commonwealth agreed the revocation cannot stand where acquittal removes the sole factual basis for the violation	Giliam argued the VOP (and sentence) must be vacated because the new charges were the sole basis and he was acquitted	Vacated — where the VOP was founded solely on new-crime allegations and those allegations ended in acquittal, no violation was proved and the revocation sentence is void
Whether, alternatively, the VOP sentence was manifestly excessive and should be vacated/remanded for resentencing	Commonwealth would defend the sentence as within the court’s discretion	Giliam argued the sentence was excessive and failed to account sufficiently for his mental-health and rehabilitation needs	Not reached — court declined to address because the acquittal-based vacatur was dispositive

Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2019) (clarifies VOP process: court must first find a violation by preponderance before considering probation’s rehabilitative effectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005) (discusses risks of proceeding with VOP hearings before trial on underlying charges and the preferred approach of waiting)
Commonwealth v. Moriarty, 180 A.3d 1279 (Pa. Super. 2018) (VOP based solely on charges later acquitted renders revocation infirm)
Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (permitted VOP hearings prior to trial on new charges, though later decisions caution against routine use)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 336 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 1977) (noting it may be preferable to defer VOP hearings until after trial to avoid unjust revocations)
Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of appellate review for VOP sentences)