Com. v. Potts, A., 2017 MDA 2015

In March 2014 Aaron Potts pled guilty to corruption of minors (first-degree misdemeanor) in connection with sexual misconduct involving a minor; other charges were withdrawn as part of a plea deal.
Court imposed a split sentence: 6–23 months incarceration (Phase One) with 36 months probation consecutive (Phase Two); Potts was eligible for work release and subject to no-contact, curfew, and sex-offender evaluation/treatment conditions.
Potts failed to report timely to work release, was later taken into custody, paroled April 1, 2015, and began probation supervision.
Probation alleged multiple violations (failure to report, employment issues, possession of a cell phone with pornographic images, failure to provide correct address, refusal to complete sex-offender evaluation/treatment, belligerent behavior, unpaid fines); a revocation hearing was held July 17, 2015.
After revocation the court imposed 9 months back-time (remaining Phase One) plus an 18–36 month consecutive sentence (total confinement), applied 14 months credit, and reimposed treatment and no-contact/curfew conditions; Potts appealed asserting the sentence was excessive because violations were technical and occurred soon after parole.
Superior Court considered whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c) and upheld the revocation sentence, finding the record supported likelihood of future offenses and necessity to vindicate court authority.

Issue	Potts' Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether imposition of 18–36 months (consecutive to 9 months back-time) after revocation was unreasonable/excessive	Sentence was excessive for technical violations occurring shortly after parole; court failed to consider rehabilitation needs	Sentence lawful because Potts repeatedly violated conditions, refused treatment, possessed pornographic material, and demonstrated defiance making confinement appropriate to protect public and vindicate court authority	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; §9771(c)(2) and (3) supported confinement (likelihood of reoffense and vindication of court authority)

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for discretionary-review of probation-revocation sentencing and §9771(c) requirements)
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement; issues not preserved are waived)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 955 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. 2008) (probation may be revoked for post-sentencing conduct showing unworthiness of probation)