Com. v. Haliday, A.
1380 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Aris Haliday pled guilty (2010) to two counts of indecent assault against minor cousins; received 11.5–23 months’ incarceration plus 4 years’ probation and was designated a sexually violent predator.
- Probation conditions included no contact with children; county probation later imposed an additional no-contact directive regarding his ex-girlfriend, Faith Witherspoon, and placed him on GPS monitoring.
- Probation officer made an unscheduled home visit in April 2015 and found an adult woman with an infant, resulting in an administrative detainer (no formal revocation then).
- In October 2015 GPS data showed Haliday near Witherspoon’s address; Witherspoon and his counselor reported repeated unwanted contacts; counselor discharged him for denial/arguing in treatment.
- Formal revocation proceedings charged three grounds: violating the no-contact directive (creating danger), discharge from treatment, and failure to pay fines/costs; the court found two grounds proven (no-contact and discharge) and revoked probation.
- Trial court sentenced Haliday to 2–4 years’ imprisonment; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of probation department-imposed no-contact condition | Probation office may impose supervision conditions; county argues it can set conditions related to rehabilitation | Haliday: condition wasn’t imposed by the court and therefore invalid | Waived; even if preserved, county probation may impose specific supervisory conditions that further court-imposed terms (Elliot) — no relief |
| Vagueness of no-contact directive | County: directive aimed at rehabilitation and public safety; conduct (stalking-like behavior) is not constitutionally protected | Haliday: directive (“at or around” residence) was vague, lacked distance/metes and bounds, violates due process | Condition not fatal for revocation: court considered overall conduct and risk to community; void-for-vagueness challenge fails |
| Whether discharge from counseling (ground for revocation) improperly rested on the allegedly invalid no-contact order | County: discharge was based on counselor’s findings (denial/argumentative) and independent of legal status of directive | Haliday: discharge flowed from the invalid no-contact finding, so it cannot support revocation | Rejected: even if no-contact were imperfect, discharge and GPS evidence were admissible and probative; court properly considered all evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | County: preponderance of evidence showed violations (contact behavior, discharge from treatment, prior informal violation) | Haliday: relied on narrow challenge to no-contact and argued other grounds tied to it | Held: Commonwealth met preponderance standard; court properly balanced rehabilitation prospects vs. community safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2012) (county/parole authorities may impose specific supervisory conditions that further court-imposed probation terms)
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (probation/supervisory conditions must give probationers clear guidance; vagueness/overbreadth analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court may consider conduct inconsistent with rehabilitation even if not an independent crime)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Commonwealth must prove probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence)