Commonwealth v. Elliott
50 A.3d 1284
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellee Elliott pled guilty to child sex offenses in Westmoreland County; court imposed four-and-a-half to nine years and a five-year probation term, plus SVP designation with probation conditions and Board supervision as a special probationer.
- Board supplied a five-page Standard Special Conditions for Sex Offenders — Minor Victims, including Conditions 17 (no contact with anyone under 18) and 19 (no loitering within 1,000 feet of minors).
- During probation, Elliott was observed in Perry Square near areas with children; he admitted to regular visits and arousal towards a girl in a red swimsuit; a journal linking visits to past victims was found.
- Probation revocation hearing resulted in revocation based on Conditions 17 and 19; Superior Court reversed the revocation, finding 17 incorporated into court’s order and 19 not so incorporated, and thus insufficient to support revocation.
- This Court vacates the Superior Court’s ruling, holds that Board/agents may impose supervision conditions linked to probation and remands for sufficiency review of Condition 19 evidence.
- Jurisdictional note: the opinion addresses the relationship between the Sentencing Code (probation terms) and the Prisons and Parole Code (supervision conditions) and affirms Board authority to impose supervising conditions that elaborate on probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may impose supervision conditions beyond the court’s probation terms. | Elliott contends only the court may impose probation conditions. | Commonwealth argues § 9798.3 authorizes Board-imposed supervision conditions. | Board may impose supervision conditions that elaborate on or interpret probation terms. |
| Whether revocation based on Condition 19 is valid. | Superior Court erred in not upholding revocation for Condition 19. | Condition 19 constitutes a permissible Board-imposed supervision condition. | Remand to assess sufficiency of evidence for revocation based on Condition 19; Condition 19 permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Board authority debated; court discusses probation vs. supervision distinction)
- Commonwealth v. MacGregor, 912 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Court held probation conditions must be court-imposed; Board cannot sole-source conditions)
- Commonwealth v. Hacker, 609 Pa. 108, 15 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2011) (statutory interpretation guidance; de novo review)