Com. v. Koger, C.
2021 Pa. Super. 115
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Appellant Christopher Koger pled guilty (8/21/2018) to possession of child pornography and criminal use of a communication facility; received 8–23 months (with immediate parole) and a consecutive 3‑year probation term.
- At sentencing the court stated several special conditions (no contact with victims shown in images, drug/alcohol evaluation, community service, sexual offender counseling) but did not, according to the trial court, advise or attach the general probation/parole rules and specific supervision conditions in the sentencing order.
- The probation office later provided written rules and explained conditions to Koger after sentencing per local practice.
- Koger’s parole and probation were revoked after alleged technical violations (phone containing minor pornography, removal from a community program, threatening an officer); Commonwealth proceeded on a probation/parole revocation petition by the probation officer.
- On appeal the panel remanded to determine whether the sentencing court had imposed or advised Koger of the specific conditions; the trial court admitted it had not and that probation staff had explained conditions post‑sentencing.
- Holding: because the court failed to impose/advise specific supervision conditions at sentencing, the revocation could not stand; the VOP judgment of sentence was vacated and revocation reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Koger's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VOP court erred revoking parole where Commonwealth failed to prove what parole conditions Koger violated | Commonwealth did not prove the actual parole conditions; no new criminal conviction; Foster requires violation of an attached specific condition or new crime | Not required to introduce the county probation rules; the VOP petition identified conditions/violations | Reversed — trial court never imposed/communicated the specific parole conditions at sentencing, so revocation improper |
| Whether VOP court abused discretion revoking probation where Commonwealth failed to prove actual probation conditions | Same as above: no proof of specific probation conditions; no new offense | Probation officer’s petition and local practice suffice to show conditions | Reversed — sentencing court must attach/announce specific conditions; delegation to probation office insufficient |
| Whether VOP sentences are illegal because Commonwealth failed to prove violations | Sentencing court lacked authority to revoke/sentence without proof that court-imposed conditions were violated | VOP court had authority based on alleged technical violations as pleaded | Vacated — sentences imposed after defective revocation lacked required predicate (court‑imposed conditions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2019) (probation/parole revocation requires violation of a specific condition included in the court’s probation order or commission of a new crime; trial court must attach or announce reasonable conditions)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process framework for parole revocation: first step is retrospective factual finding whether parolee violated a condition)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Commonwealth must prove revocation grounds by a preponderance of the evidence; revocation lies within trial court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate sufficiency review of revocation determinations; defer to trial court absent legal error or abuse of discretion)