2001 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Sims’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen a parolee or probationer is detained pending a revocation hearing, due process requires a determination at a pre-revocation hearing, a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe that a violation has been committed. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 761 A.2d 613 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing Commonwealth v. Holmes, 248 Pa.Super. 552 , 375 A.2d 379, 381 (1977)). Where a finding of probable cause is made, a second, more comprehensive hearing, a Gagnon II hearing, is required before a final revocation decision can be made. Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 275 Pa.Super. 176 , 418 A.2d 669, 672 (1980). The Gagnon II hearing entails two decisions: first, a “consideration of whether the facts determined warrant revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). “The first step in a Gagnon II revocation decision ... involves a wholly retrospective factual question: whether the parolee [or probationer] has in fact acted in violation of one or more conditions of his parole [or probation].” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1761 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (citing Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ). It is this fact that must be demonstrated by evidence containing “probative value.” Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102 , 305 A.2d 701 (1973). “Only if it is determined that the parolee [or probationer] did violate the conditions does the second question arise: should the parolee [or probationer] be recommitted to”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 202 - Commonwealth v. Heilman · Commonwealth v. Moriarty

2. “Unlike a criminal trial where the burden is upon the Commonwealth to establish all of the requisite elements of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt, at a revocation hearing the Commonwealth need only prove a violation of [parole or] probation by a preponderance of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Moriarty

3. “We know of no law that allows for probation to be revoked solely on the basis of an arrest and waiver of a preliminary hearing. On the contrary, we have found that an arrest alone, without facts to support the arrest, is not sufficient to revoke probation or parole.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Banks