§ 9722. Order of probation.
The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be
accorded weight in favor of an order of probation:
(1) The criminal conduct of the defendant neither caused nor threatened serious harm.
(2) The defendant did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious
harm.
(3) The defendant acted under a strong provocation.
(4) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the criminal conduct of
the defendant, though failing to establish a defense.
(5) The victim of the criminal conduct of the defendant induced or facilitated its commission.
(6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct
for the damage or injury that he sustained.
(7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led
a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the present
crime.
(8) The criminal conduct of the defendant was the result of circumstances unlikely to
recur.
(9) The character and attitudes of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit
another crime.
(10) The defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment.
(11) The confinement of the defendant would entail excessive hardship to him or his dependents.
(12) Such other grounds as indicate the desirability of probation.
Cross References. Section 9722 is referred to in section 9723 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki (1987)
pa · cites it 3×
“Even more detailed are the grounds which are to be "accorded weight" in favor of an order of probation, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722, [1] and even these criteria are stated as "not controlling the discretion of the court.”
Commonwealth v. Kuphal (1985)
pa · cites it 4×
“§§ 9722-9726, and identifies the factors that weigh in favor of probation, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722. [4] By Act of November 26, 1978, the General Assembly provided that the sentencing judge must also consider "sentencing guidelines," to be adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on…”
Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole (2016)
pacommwct
“42 Pa.C.S. §§9722—25. Similarly, section 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code provides that “the court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed.”
Commonwealth v. Hess (2000)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722. The sentencing court indicated that when all twelve factors in Section 9722 are considered, they mandate neither a sentence of probation nor a sentence of incarceration.”
Commonwealth v. Fahy (2008)
pa
“§ 9711(d)(6) (murder committed while in the commission of a felony), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722(d)(8) (murder committed by torture), and 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Allshouse (2009)
pasuperct
“While the facts underlying the defendant’s offense are an appropriate consideration when deciding whether to impose a sentence of probation, see 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. Ann. § 9722, the trial court cannot find that a defendant violated probation because of conduct prior to the…”
Commonwealth v. Basinger (2009)
pasuperct
“See 42 Pa. C.S. § 9722 (recognizing mitigating factors that “shall be accorded weight in favor of an order of probation”).”
Commonwealth v. Spencer (1985)
pa · cites it 2×
“Next the judge identified the factors weighing in favor of probation, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722, and in succession, rejected each as inapplicable to appellant.”
Commonwealth v. Artis (1982)
pasuperct
“§ 9721 of the Sentencing Code or the factors mandated for consideration at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722 through § 9725 of the Sentencing Code.”
Commonwealth v. Kraft (1982)
pasuperct
“In the present instance, there is no suggestion in the record that the sentencing judge considered or accorded weight to the individual factors set forth in the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9722(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Hess (2000)
pasuperct
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722. The sentencing court indicated that when all twelve factors in Section 9722 are considered, they mandate neither a sentence of probation nor a sentence of incarceration.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9722(3) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9722(7) — 2 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9722(d)(8) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Fahy (2008)
pa
“§ 9711(d)(6) (murder committed while in the commission of a felony), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722(d)(8) (murder committed by torture), and 42 Pa.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.