Gagnon I hearing in Pennsylvania

2026A] Gagnon II hearing is more complete than the Gagnon I hearing in affording the probationer additional due process safeguards[.]” Id. - 13 - J-S03038-26 The purpose of the requirement of a Gagnon I hearing . . . is to ensure against detention on allegations of violations that have no foundation of probable cause.

2026See Commonwealth v. Ferguson 761 A.2d 613, 617 (Pa. Super. 2000). 4 If the trial court finds probable cause at the Gagnon I hearing, a second, more comprehensive Gagnon II hearing is required before a final revocation decision can be made.

2025(Iwanicki’s Br. at 9-10 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973);20 Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)).) In other words, according to Iwanicki, the Commonwealth denied Iwanicki due process by not holding a Gagnon I hearing.

2025On February 9, 2016, the revocation matter proceeded to a Gagnon I hearing.2 Ultimately, the trial ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)(ii). 2 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 761 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2000) (explaining that, when a (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-A29013-24 court held that probable cause existed to find Appellant in violation of her parole.

2022“When a . . . 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, 617 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation and emphasis omitted). “[T]he Gagnon I hearing is similar to the preliminary hearing afforded all offenders before a Common Pleas Court trial: the Commonwealth must show probable cause that the violation was committed.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 336 A.2d 616, 621 (Pa. Super. 1975).

2018It was noted that a defendant is entitled to receive two hearings: “one a preliminary hearing at the time of his arrest and detention to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a violation of his probation (the Gagnon I hearing) and the other a somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of a final revocation decision.' (the Gagnon II hearing) Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 781-82 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 at 1759 .' Commonwealth v. Davis, supra, at 37 , 336 A.2d at 620 .

2023Due process in VOP proceedings “requires a determination at a pre- revocation hearing, [also known as] a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe that a violation has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Sims, 770 A.2d 346, 349 (Pa.Super. 2001) (cleaned up).

2023Due process in VOP proceedings “requires a determination at a pre- revocation hearing, [also known as] a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe that a violation has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Sims, 770 A.2d 346 , 349 (Pa.Super. 2001) (cleaned up).

2020“When 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.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Holmes, 375 A.2d 379, 381, n. 4 (Pa.Super. 1977)).

2018Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 761 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citing Commonwealth v. Holmes, [] 375 A.2d 379, 381 ([Pa. Super.] 1977)).

2026When a “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. Allshouse, 969 A.2d 1236, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2025See N.T., 5/1/24, at 3; Gagnon II Summary, 4/26/24, at 2 (unpaginated). 3 See generally Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (concluding due process requires that parolees/probationers be given a preliminary (Gagnon I) and final (Gagnon II) hearing prior to a revocation of parole/probation). “[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. Allshouse, 969 A.2d 1236, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2009) (

2024In Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1978), this Court explained: If before his … probation is revoked[,] a ... probationer has not complained of the lack of a Gagnon I hearing, he has already suffered the harm that the omission allegedly caused[.

2022In Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1978), this Court explained: If before his . . . probation is revoked a . . . probationer has not complained of the lack of a Gagnon I hearing, he has already suffered the harm that the omission allegedly caused[.

2022The certified record reflects that Appellant, who was represented by counsel, waived his right to a Gagnon I hearing and stipulated to violating the specific terms of his probation by failing to complete parenting classes.1 ____________________________________________ 1 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Starr, 234 A.3d 755, 762 (Pa.Super. 2020) (explaining that when a probationer is detained based on an alleged probation violation, due process requires a Gagnon I hearing to determine if there is probable cause that probationer committed a violation of his p

2021As the trial court ____________________________________________ 3 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Starr, 234 A.3d 755, 762 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining when probationer is detained based on an alleged probation violation, due process requires a Gagnon I hearing to determine if there is probable cause that probationer committed a violation of his probation, followed by a second more comprehensive Gagnon II hearing wherein trial court determines whether to revoke probation). -6- J-A22029-20 noted, counsel confirmed at Appellant’s Gagnon II hearing that she was

2025(Iwanicki’s Br. at 9-10 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973);20 Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)).) In other words, according to Iwanicki, the Commonwealth denied Iwanicki due process by not holding a Gagnon I hearing.

2020“When 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.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Holmes, 375 A.2d 379, 381, n. 4 (Pa.Super. 1977)).

2026“The purpose of [a Gagnon I] hearing will have been served by the preliminary hearing.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Del Conte, 419 A.2d 780 , 781 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating that “[w]hen the probation or parole violation is based on the commission of a crime, a preliminary hearing may substitute for a Gagnon I hearing”).

2018The Davis Court explained that in such cases, “[t]he purpose of [the Gagnon I] hearing will have been served by the preliminary hearing.” Id. at 622-23 ; see also Commonwealth v. Del Conte, 419 A.2d 780 , 781 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1980) (“When the probation or parole violation is based on the commission of a crime, a preliminary hearing may substitute for a Gagnon I hearing.”) (citations omitted).

2024After this determination is made, a Gagnon II hearing is conducted where the Commonwealth is required to establish that the defendant did violate his parole/probation.” Commonwealth v. Stafford, 29 A.3d 800 , 802 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

2023Defense counsel stated that the hearing was “based on a technical violation” for Byrd’s first positive urine during his five-year probationary ____________________________________________ 2 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); See Commonwealth v. Stafford, 29 A.3d 800 , 801 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2011) (“A Gagnon I hearing is a pre-revocation hearing to determine if probable cause exists that a violation was committed”). -2- J-A15023-23 sentence.

2025See id. (“The necessity of the ‘preliminary’ or Gagnon I hearing is obviated … if the defendant is convicted in the Court of Common Pleas before the probation revocation is held, as the purpose of the hearing — to show probable cause whether probation has been violated — will have been served by the trial.”) (cleaned up).

2018Commonwealth v. Stratton, 344 A.2d 636 , 637–38 (Pa.Super. 1975).

2024Commonwealth v. Fowler, 419 A.2d 34, 35 (Pa. Super. 1980).

2024See Fowler, -9- J-A13034-24 419 A.2d at 36 (finding that the denial of counsel at a Gagnon I hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: “It’s clear that [the] appellant’s ability to defend himself against the charges at the Gagnon II hearing was not impaired in any way by the denial of counsel at the Gagnon I hearing.”).

2001“Thus, the Gagnon II hearing is more complete than the Gagnon I hearing in affording the probationer additional due process safeguards, specifically: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or] parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examinemdverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional pa

2001“Thus, the Gagnon II hearing is more complete than the Gagnon I hearing in affording the probationer additional due process safeguards, specifically: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or] parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examinemdverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional pa

1986Commonwealth v. Ball, 235 Pa.Super. 581 , 344 A.2d 675, 677 (1975) later appealed, 242 Pa.Super. 379 , 363 A.2d 1322 (1976).

1986Commonwealth v. Ball, 235 Pa.Super. 581 , 344 A.2d 675, 677 (1975) later appealed, 242 Pa.Super. 379 , 363 A.2d 1322 (1976).

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kavanaugh, 482 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 1984) (holding that uncontradicted evidence of the appellant’s arrest on new charges at the Gagnon I hearing was sufficient to show that the appellant violated his probationary sentence).

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kavanaugh, 482 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 1984) (holding that uncontradicted evidence of the appellant’s arrest on new charges at the Gagnon I hearing was sufficient to show that the appellant violated his probationary sentence).

2023See Carter, supra at 781 (determining the court erred in finding Carter had committed a technical violation where “the record demonstrate[d] that Carter received no notice of any alleged technical violation of his probation before he appeared before the court”); Gaiski, supra at *7 (finding the court erred in revoking Gaiski’s probation based upon alleged violations where “[t]here [wa]s no evidence in the record that these other purported bases for revoking [Gaiski’s] probation were included in the revocation petition, or presented . . . at the Gagnon I hearing”).

2023See Carter, supra at 781 (determining the court erred in finding Carter had committed a technical violation where “the record demonstrate[d] that Carter received no notice of any alleged technical violation of his probation before he appeared before the court”); Gaiski, supra at *7 (finding the court erred in revoking Gaiski’s probation based upon alleged violations where “[t]here [wa]s no evidence in the record that these other purported bases for revoking [Gaiski’s] probation were included in the revocation petition, or presented . . . at the Gagnon I hearing”).

2019Notably, the Mullins Court also cited to Commonwealth v. Griggs, 461 A.2d 221, 225 (Pa. Super. 1983), which did not involve any evidentiary or procedural anomaly, but was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that the probationer was in violation.

1984See: Commonwealth v. Griggs, 314 Pa.Super. 407 , 409 n.1, 461 A.2d 221 , 222 n.1 (1983); Commonwealth v. Del Conte, 277 Pa.Super. 296 , 298 n.2, 419 A.2d 780 , 781 n.2 (1980).

1979See also Commonwealth v. Stratton, 235 Pa.Super. 566 , 344 A.2d 636 (1975); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 234 Pa.Super. 498 , 340 A.2d 483 (1975).

1979See also Commonwealth v. Stratton, 235 Pa.Super. 566 , 344 A.2d 636 (1975); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 234 Pa.Super. 498 , 340 A.2d 483 (1975).

2026See id.

2024Due process in revocation-of-probation proceedings “requires a determination at a pre-revocation hearing, also known as a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe that a violation has been committed.” Commonwealth v. Baumann, 307 A.3d 1231, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

2024“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.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2023Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240 , 1244 n.3 (Pa. 2019) (“Foster II”) (citing Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 782 ); Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 5 Additionally, we note that “any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a [Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)] petition.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2021In September 2019, the court held a probation revocation hearing, where Simpson waived his right to the Gagnon I hearing, and the ____________________________________________ Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, [the courts] deem a document filed on the day it is placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.”); Pa.R.A.P. 121(f).

2021Commonwealth v. Powell, [] 956 A.2d 406, 423 ([Pa.] 2008); Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159, 1174 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“On appeal, we will not consider assignments ____________________________________________ 2 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Starr, 234 A.3d 755, 762 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining when probationer is detained based on an alleged probation violation, due process requires a Gagnon I hearing to determine if there is probable cause that probationer committed a violation of his probation, followed by a second more comprehensive Gagnon II hearing wh