Issues: probation violations, re-sentencing hearings, legality of sentence, probation conditions.

In this case, the Appellant, Christopher Albert Koger, challenged whether the Commonwealth established the specific conditions of his parole and probation after he was re-sentenced for violating his parole and probation. 

At the revocation hearing, his probation officer testified that he found child porn on the Appellant’s phone and that he had been communicating with a minor via text message. The officer also testified that he provided Appellant with a copy of the rules of the adult probation office and the Appellant signed those rules. However, the evidence showed that these specific terms and conditions were not explained to Appellant at the time of sentencing but instead were explained to Appellant after sentencing. After Appellant was arrested, the probation officer testified that Appellant threatened another officer. Based on this evidence, the court found that he violated his parole and probation and resentenced Appellant to serve the balance of his maximum sentence.

The Superior Court held that since the Judge at sentencing did not specifically advise the Appellant of the conditions of his probation and parole at the time of his initial sentencing, he could not be found to violate conditions he was never informed of. The Superior Court specifically rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the probation officer could inform the Appellant of the probation conditions. The Superior Court concluded by stating that “a sentencing court may not delegate its statutorily proscribed duties to probation and parole offices and is required to communicate any conditions of probation or parole as a prerequisite to violating any such condition.”