Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2004 Pa. Super. 97

847 A.2d 122

Commonwealth v. Clark

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 6, 2004

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2004-04-06

Relies on Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · Valencia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · 2002 Pa. Super. 105 - Commonwealth v. Mines

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-04-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2026

4 state decisions

20200420102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCAFFERY, J.,

¶1Concurring.

¶2¶ 1 I wholeheartedly join in the well-reasoned Majority Opinion of my esteemed colleague, the Honorable Kate Ford Elliott. However, I am compelled to write separately because I, too, “certainly sympathize with the problems of judges and prosecutors trying to obtain the presence of an incarcerated defendant for trial who is in the state prison system on another case.” Commonwealth v. Mines, 797 A.2d 963, 966 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 571 Pa. 705, 812 A.2d 1229 (2002). Due to severe overcrowding in the Philadelphia Prison System, the number of probationers/parolees in state institutions, and the problems encountered when bringing defendants down from state custody, I strongly recommend expanding the use of videoconferencing to hold Violation of Probation (“VOP”) hearings. This would significantly decrease the number of times these hearings would need to be continued because a defendant was not brought down, thus benefiting the defendant.

/2004/pasuper/97 · .json · Public domain