Commonwealth v. Everett, 419 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Everett, 419 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …ince the original probation was illegal, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was illegal at p. 794 ✓
30 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Dunn, K. (pasuperct, 2021-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Com. v. Dunn, K.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ince the original probation was illegal, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was illegal
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Com. v. Simmons, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ince the original probation was illegal, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was illegal
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Greer, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2026 · confidence medium
Therefore, Greer argues, that “[s]ince the original probation was illegal, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was illegal, and both must be vacated.” Id. at 17 (quoting Commonwealth v. Everett, 419 A.2d 793, 794 (Pa. Super. 1980) (per curiam) and Commonwealth v. Milhomme, 35 A.3d 1219, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Milhomme
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2011 · confidence medium
Everett, 419 A.2d at 794 (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Crum, G.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Infante, 63 A.3d at 367 n.4 (declining to review Defendant/Appellant’s original sentence in appeal from sentence imposed following probation revocation because Milhomme was decided relying on Commonwealth v. Everett, 419 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1980), which itself was decided on appeal from denial of petition for collateral relief and prior to revised PCRA time constraints).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Paige (4×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Everett, 277 Pa.Super. 323 , 419 A.2d 793 (1980). [1] 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. [2] The Crimes Code provides, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a): A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such bodily injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life . . . . [3] Although it is not entirely clear, it seems that appellant was denying having used a gun to hurt the victim, rather than denying having injured the victim at all.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania,
v.
David Donald EVERETT, Appellant
1233.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
May 16, 1980.
419 A.2d 793
John A. Halley, Pittsburgh, for appellant., Charles W. Johns, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cercone, Montgomery, Lipez.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
[*325] PER CURIAM:

Appellant pled guilty, in 1975, to one count each of carrying a firearm without a license [1] and altering or obliterating marks of identification thereon. [2] He was sentenced to five years’ probation, with an alternate sentence of two and one — half to five years’ imprisonment. In 1976, following appellant’s conviction of an unrelated offense, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two to four years’ imprisonment. No direct appeal was taken. Appellant filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), alleging the invalidity of his plea due to his lack of understanding of the alternate sentence. The court below denied the petition after a hearing.

Alternate sentences had already been proscribed by the Sentencing Code by the time appellant was sentenced. [3] Even though appellant has failed to raise this issue, our consideration thereof is not precluded. Commonwealth v. Betoni, 254 Pa.Super. 26, 385 A.2d 506 (1978); Commonwealth v. Usher, 246 Pa.Super. 602, 371 A.2d 995 (1977). Since the original probation was illegal, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of that probation was illegal, and both must be vacated. Commonwealth v. Betoni, supra.

Judgments of sentence vacated and case remanded for imposition of a lawful sentence. The order of the court below is reversed. [4]

4

. In the interests of judicial economy, we note that, both when appellant was first sentenced and when his probation was revoked, the court below failed to place upon the record its reasons for imposing the sentences selected. Such a statement is required by Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977).