*2 Before J., P. HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VOORT, VAN der SPAETH and JJ.
CERCONE, Judge:
On Harrison pleaded to several counts of guilty and was sentenced burglary, one and one-half to three years’ imprisonment. the lower court then ordered that the sentence would be suspended appellant was into an accepted approved drug treatment make bona fide efforts in the program, education- al, vocational and/or employment programs offered center, lastly, appellant report regularly officer should there be time remaining on his sentence after completing drug pro- gram. court then stated in its order that “if any *3 of these conditions are not met defendant . he shall undergo imprisonment for a term as hereinbefore imposed.”
Appellant was admitted into an approved drug treatment program and received treatment until January when he was terminated for disciplinary reasons. The court was notified of appellant’s termination from the drug treat- ment program on March and on April 1977 the court ordered appellant to serve “the original sentence im- posed on 1976of February not less than one and one half nor more than three to date from years January ”. This appeal followed.
Appellant maintains that at the time of sentencing when his original prison sentence was he suspended, was in effect sentenced to probation, conditioned upon the successful com- pletion drug program. He submits that this probation was thereafter revoked without unlawfully a or hearing without other due process safeguards. We agree,
and therefore vacate the lower court’s order and remand. code,1
The authorizes five sentencing possi § (2) a sentencing “(1) ble alternatives: an order of probation; guilt (3) partial determination of without further penalty; confinement; confinement; (4) (5) total fine.” Pa.C. the lower court Although S.A. order does not specifically being placed state that on proba tion, a this review of the 1321 alternatives leads court to the conclusion that was in fact ordered. probation Section sentencing (c)(12) 1354 of the code in subsection provides that the court a condition of require probation that may participate defendant in a or alcohol treatment See, e. g., Quinlan, Commonwealth v. 251 Pa.Su (1977). (Order per. probation condi on from alcohol.) Moreover, tioned abstention in the instant case, sentencing order contains the additional condition to a report probation remainder, officer for the “parole period.” his Thus, order, we hold that in its original the lower sentencing court in effect placed appellant probation.
It
is established law
this Commonwealth that
before
revoked,
a defendant’s
be
he is enti
tled to certain due process safeguards. This court in Com
monwealth v.
(1975),
adopted the standards set forth
the United
States Su
preme
Court in
Scarpelli,
U.S.
tion must procedure be followed. “A parolee is entitled to two hearings, one a at the time of preliminary hearing *4 arrest and detention to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a violation of his parole, and the other a somewhat more hear comprehensive ing prior the of a final making revocation decision.” Gagnon 781-82, v. Scarpelli, supra at 93 at 1759. of Through vehicle these additional due hearings, process safeguards are provided notice of including violations, the asserted an to be heard and to opportunity 6, 1972, 334, 1301, 1974, 1. Act December P.L. No. added seq. December P.L. No. Sections 1301 et 66 hearing body, detached and witnesses, a neutral
confront evi- as to the the factfinders written statement and a Common- revoking parole. reasons for on and dence relied A.2d 616. at Davis, p. supra, v. Pa.Super. wealth order of violated the case, appellant instant In the from a his termination causing his termination record that from the It appears 31, 1977 on arrest, occurring January on an was based and goods conspiracy. stolen receiving forgery, charges held on hearing A preliminary to court. We was bound over and charges these appellant’s held after hearing preliminary find that I” “Gagnon hearing. See a sufficient arrest constitutes p. supra, v. Pa.Super. Commonwealth proce of the revocation step the second of a final II” making to the prior “Gagnon dure, hearing evidence of “probative based on must be revocation decision Kates, A.2d 701 Pa. value.” Commonwealth II not providing court erred in (1973). resulted in a a hearing to hold such The failure hearing. We therefore process. to due right of appellant’s violation held to deter may be hearing so that a vacate and remand revoked should be appellant’s probation whether or not mine sentence, imposed.2 if to be to determine so case remanded for and the of sentence vacated Judgment opinion. with this in accordance hearing statement. HESTER, J., dissenting files a HOFFMAN, J., did Judge, President former of this case. or decision in the consideration not participate dissenting: Judge, economy, of judicial In the interest I dissent. respectfully sentence of imposition the action and the I would affirm the court below. imposed a result of this sentence It is well-settled imposed three-year in the maximum may not exceed the remand Tomlin, Pa.Super. original Commonwealth sentence. Cole, A.2d 407 Commonwealth