result of a technical violation in Pennsylvania

2025See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question presented “when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation”); Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 995 (Pa. Super. 2016) (a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider the factors set forth in Section 9721(b) raises a substantial question).

2023See Commonwealth v. Lucky, 229 A.3d 657, 664 (Pa. Super. 2020), citing Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, ... a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.”).

2020Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 98 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“An argument that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence to technical probation violations raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358, 376 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]n allegation that the court considered an impermissible sentencing factor - 29 - J-A04018-20 raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence,

2020See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or - 10 - J-A27037-19 probation.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 930 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court disproportionately sentenced a defendant without providing a justification raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a claim that “court

2025See Commonwealth v. Lucky, 229 A.3d 657, 664 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, ... a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.”) (citation omitted).

2023See Commonwealth v. Lucky, 229 A.3d 657, 664 (Pa. Super. 2020), citing Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, ... a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.”).

2025See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question presented “when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation”); Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 995 (Pa. Super. 2016) (a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider the factors set forth in Section 9721(b) raises a substantial question).

2017See Sierra, 752 A.2d at 913 (“On appeal from a revocation -4- J-S53015-17 proceeding, we find a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.”); Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 999 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding “that the failure to consider Section 9721(b) factors … present[s] a substantial question for our review of the discretionary aspects of sentences imposed for violations of probation”).

2023See also Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064-65 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[A] claim that a sentence is excessive because the trial court relied on an impermissible factor raises a substantial question.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factor—raises a substantial question.”) However, the first threshold requirement that the appeal must be timely is an open question raised for our consideration in the second enumerated issue

2019This Court has held that “an excessive sentence -8- J-S27007-19 claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Id. at 339 , citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (same) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that a substantial question is presented when a probation revocation sentence of total confinement is imposed as a result of a technical violati

2020See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or - 10 - J-A27037-19 probation.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 930 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court disproportionately sentenced a defendant without providing a justification raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a claim that “court

2020See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or - 10 - J-A27037-19 probation.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 930 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court disproportionately sentenced a defendant without providing a justification raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a claim that “court

2020Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 98 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“An argument that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence to technical probation violations raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Pacheco, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 400243 at *14 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]n allegation that the court considered an impermissible sentencing factor raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, i

2020Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 98 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“An argument that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence to technical probation violations raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358, 376 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]n allegation that the court considered an impermissible sentencing factor - 29 - J-A04018-20 raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence,

2020See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or - 10 - J-A27037-19 probation.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 930 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court disproportionately sentenced a defendant without providing a justification raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a claim that “court

2020See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or - 10 - J-A27037-19 probation.”); Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 930 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court disproportionately sentenced a defendant without providing a justification raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 740 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a claim that “court

2015Now, we turn to the merits of Appellant’s appeal, recognizing that: The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation “is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 447 Pa. Super. 502 , 669 A.2d 1008, 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996).

2015Now, we turn to the merits of Appellant’s appeal, recognizing that: The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation “is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 447 Pa. Super. 502 , 669 A.2d 1008, 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996).

2023See also Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064-65 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[A] claim that a sentence is excessive because the trial court relied on an impermissible factor raises a substantial question.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factor—raises a substantial question.”) However, the first threshold requirement that the appeal must be timely is an open question raised for our consideration in the second enumerated issue

2020Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 98 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“An argument that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence to technical probation violations raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358, 376 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]n allegation that the court considered an impermissible sentencing factor - 29 - J-A04018-20 raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“On appeal from a revocation proceeding, … a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence,

2019This Court has held that “an excessive sentence -8- J-S27007-19 claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Id. at 339 , citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (same) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that a substantial question is presented when a probation revocation sentence of total confinement is imposed as a result of a technical violati

2019See Commonwealth v. Ziegler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015). -7- J-S23004-19 when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.”).

2016See Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that a substantial question is presented when a probation revocation sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation).

2015See Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that a substantial question is presented when a probation revocation sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation);5 see also Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735, 737 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that the appellant presented a substantial question by asserting that the sentencing court did not comply with section 9771(c) of the Sentencing Code when imposing its revocation sentence).

2015Because the instant matter involves a sentence of total incarceration as a result of a technical violation of probation, we examine Appellant’s claim. -4- J-S50037-15 “Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa.Super.2008).

2015“The Commonwealth establishes a probation violation meriting revocation when it shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the probationer’s conduct violated the terms and conditions of his probation, and that probation has proven an ineffective rehabilitation tool incapable of deterring probationer from future antisocial conduct.” Id. “[I]t is only when it becomes apparent that the probationary order is not serving this desired end [of rehabilitation] the court’s discretion to impose a more appropriate sanction should not be fettered.” Id. at 888-89 .

2005See, e.g., Sierra, 752 A.2d at 913 ("On appeal from a revocation proceeding, we find a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation."). [4] NOTES [1] Under the Crimes Code, the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver carries a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. 35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(1.1). [2] Traditionally, the law of the case doctrine dictates that "upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question pr

2005See, e.g., Sierra, 752 A.2d at 913 ("On appeal from a revocation proceeding, we find a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation."). [4] NOTES [1] Under the Crimes Code, the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver carries a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. 35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(1.1). [2] Traditionally, the law of the case doctrine dictates that "upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question pr

2005See, e.g., Sierra, 752 A.2d at 913 ("On appeal from a revocation proceeding, we find a substantial question is presented when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation."). [4] NOTES [1] Under the Crimes Code, the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver carries a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. 35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(1.1). [2] Traditionally, the law of the case doctrine dictates that "upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question pr