Background
[J-88-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 69 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 1404 EDA : 2022 dated August 8, 2023 v. : Affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Delaware County Court of : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, WILLIAM HITCHNER, : at No. CP-23-CR-0002486-2011 : dated April 26, 2022.
BACKGROUND Since the dispositive issue in this case has proven so elusive, we find it necessary to begin with a discussion of Pennsylvania’s laws governing probation revocation. 4 For more than 100 years, probation under Pennsylvania law has been governed primarily by statute. Rosario, 294 A.3d 338 , 346–356 (Pa. 2023); Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 , 704–706 (Pa. 1973); Commonwealth ex rel. Morgan, 123 A. 337, 338 (Pa. 1924) (recognizing Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme “supersedes” common-law principles relating to probation). Probation, generally speaking, “is ‘[a] sentence imposed for commission of a crime whereby a convicted criminal offender is released into the community under the supervision of a probation officer in lieu of incarceration.’” Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 , 59 n.5 (Pa. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Its fundamental purpose “is to provide a means to achieve rehabilitation without resorting to incarceration.” Kates, 305 A.2d at 708 . Since “probation is designed to rehabilitate a defendant so that he can 4 Hitchner’s underlying criminal offense, conviction, original judgment of sentence, and initial (later vacated) judgment of sentence for alleged violations of his probation all occurred before December 2019, when the General Assembly amended portions of the probation statutes. See Act of Dec. 18, 2019, P.L. 776, No. 115, §§ 4 (codified as amended at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9771, 9771.1) (effective immediately). Those amendments were in effect on April 26, 2022, when Hitchner’s probation was revoked on remand after the Superior Court vacated the initial post-revocation sentence.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion that it does not.” Rosario, 294 A.3d at 350. [J-88-2025] – 29
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion that it does not.” Rosario, 294 A.3d at 350. [J-88-2025] – 29
- Rosario, 294 A.3d 338 , 346–356 (Pa. 2023); Commonwealth v.
- Kates, 305 A.2d 701 , 704–706 (Pa. 1973); Commonwealth ex rel.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.