first technical violation in Pennsylvania

2026The defendant shall be sentenced as follows: (i) For a first technical violation, a maximum period of 14 days. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c). “[T]hrough the enactment of Act 44, [S]ection 9771(c) prohibits the court from imposing a sentence of total confinement for a technical violation of probation, subject to delineated exceptions, and imposes specific, relatively short maximum sentences for a period of confinement imposed for a first or second technical violation.” See Seals, 2026 PA Super 29, at *6 .

2026The defendant shall be sentenced as follows: (i) For a first technical violation, a maximum period of 14 days. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c). “[T]hrough the enactment of Act 44, [S]ection 9771(c) prohibits the court from imposing a sentence of total confinement for a technical violation of probation, subject to delineated exceptions, and imposes specific, relatively short maximum sentences for a period of confinement imposed for a first or second technical violation.” See Seals, 2026 PA Super 29, at *6 . -5- J-S10024-25 was not authorized to impose a sentence of nine to 23 months’ total confinement f

2026Was a sentence of 21 months to 7 years illegal under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9760 and the principles set forth in Commonwealth v. Williams, 662 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1995) and Commonwealth v. Bowser, 783 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. 2001) where the maximum period of time the [c]ourt had available to re-sentence [Appellant] was 18 months and 1 day to three years and 2 days with time credit for 82 days spent incarcerated on the current capias?

2026Was a sentence of 21 months to 7 years illegal under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9760 and the principles set forth in Commonwealth v. Williams, 662 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1995) and Commonwealth v. Bowser, 783 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. 2001) where the maximum period of time the [c]ourt had available to re-sentence [Appellant] was 18 months and 1 day to three years and 2 days with time credit for 82 days spent incarcerated on the current capias?

2026In accordance with our recent opinion in Commonwealth v. Goodwin, ___ A.3d ___, 2026 PA Super 54 (Pa. Super. 2026), we agree with Appellant and conclude that his sentence is illegal. - 11 - J-S20010-25 In Goodwin, Goodwin committed three separate violations of the terms and conditions of his probation and, after Act 44 became effective, the trial court revoked Goodwin’s probation and resentenced him to serve one to two years in prison for his underlying convictions.

2026Whether … the [trial] court erred in denying [Clayborne’s] motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708, the Due Process Clause, and the standard to dismiss articulated [Commonwealth] v. Christmas, 995 A.2d 1259 ([Pa. Super.] 2010), where [section 9771(c)(2)(i)] only allows [Clayborne] to be incarcerated for 14 days on a first technical violation …, and [Clayborne] was incarcerated 79 days before having the Gagnon [II] hearing[.] 3.