Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754 (2026)

Order of probation.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 9754. Order of probation.

(a) General rule.--In imposing an order of probation the court shall specify at the time of sentencing the length of any term during which the defendant is to be supervised, which term may not exceed the maximum term for which the defendant could be confined, and the authority that shall conduct the supervision. The court shall consider probation guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing under sections 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing) and 2154.1 (relating to adoption of guidelines for restrictive conditions).

(b) Conditions generally.--The court shall attach reasonable conditions authorized by section 9763 (relating to conditions of probation).

(c) Specific conditions.--(Deleted by amendment).

(d) Sentence following violation of probation.--The sentence to be imposed in the event of the violation of a condition shall not be fixed prior to a finding on the record that a violation has occurred.

(Dec. 14, 1979, P.L.556, No.127, eff. imd.; June 30, 1988, P.L.464, No.79, eff. imd.; Dec. 18, 2019, P.L.776, No.115, eff. imd.; Dec. 14, 2023, P.L.381, No.44, eff. 180 days)

2023 Amendment. Act 44 amended subsec. (b). Section 6 of Act 44 provided that nothing in Act 44 shall be construed to prevent a defendant from petitioning a court for early termination of probation or modification of the terms and conditions of probation as otherwise permitted by law. See sections 5 and 7 of Act 44 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to applicability.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 172 cases (55 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 12× “Probation is a separate sentence permitted by the Sentencing Code under certain circumstances.”

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 155 A.3d 69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 6× “§ 1106(a), or as a condition of probation, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754. When imposed as a sentence, the injury to property or person for which restitution is ordered must directly result from the crime.”

Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 5× “4 Construing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754, which addresses orders of probation, the majority acknowledged that imposition of monetary obligations in this case amounted to restitution under subsection (c)(8) (as condition of probation, court may require defendant “[t]o make restitution of…”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 3× “It does not follow, however, that the counseling requirement under Megan’s Law II is historically analogous to punishment.”

Com. v. Koger, C., 2021 Pa. Super. 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 4× “3d at 1248-50, citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b). Our Supreme Court stated: [Section 9754(b) of the Sentencing Code] requires that [t]he court shall attach such of the reasonable conditions authorized by subsection (c) of this section as it deems necessary to insure or assist the…”

Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 5× “Thus, finding insufficient evidence to support a violation of Supervision Condition 17, and lack of judicial imprimatur for the imposition of Supervision Condition 19, the panel reversed the revocation order and remanded the case to the trial court.”

Fross v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 20 A.3d 1193 (Pa. 2011). · cites it 6× “2007); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754 (order of probation); 61 Pa.”

Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “We now have the benefit of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754, which lists specific conditions a court may order for probation.”

Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The question thus becomes whether the original split sentence of incarceration and probation are to be factored into determining the legality of the new sentence imposed after the revocation of probation.”

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 67 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 4× “(quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754). The trial court opined that this condition complies with Section 9754.”

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 95 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “” The court also contended that the PDA was valid under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(13), which provides that the court may order the defendant “to satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his *915 liberty or…”

Com. v. Starr, E., 234 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(a), (b) (effective to December 17, 2019).”

Show all 172 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(a) — 31 cases

Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005).

Commonwealth v. Strafford, 194 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

Com. v. Starr, E., 234 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(a), (b) (effective to December 17, 2019).”

Commonwealth v. Martin, 205 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Commonwealth v. Bricker, 198 A.3d 371 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(b) — 50 cases

Com. v. Koger, C., 2021 Pa. Super. 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “3d at 1248-50, citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b). Our Supreme Court stated: [Section 9754(b) of the Sentencing Code] requires that [t]he court shall attach such of the reasonable conditions authorized by subsection (c) of this section as it deems necessary to insure or assist the…”

Com. v. Sulpizio, A., 281 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).

Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003). “It does not follow, however, that the counseling requirement under Megan’s Law II is historically analogous to punishment.”

Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 33 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).

Com. v. Starr, E., 234 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(a), (b) (effective to December 17, 2019).”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(b)(c)(8) — 2 cases

In the Interest of M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999).

In Re Mw, 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c) — 20 cases

Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003). “It does not follow, however, that the counseling requirement under Megan’s Law II is historically analogous to punishment.”

Fross v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 20 A.3d 1193 (Pa. 2011). “2007); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754 (order of probation); 61 Pa.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).

Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “We now have the benefit of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754, which lists specific conditions a court may order for probation.”

Commonwealth v. MacGregor, 912 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(1) — 1 case

Thompson v. Thompson Apl of: Clarion Dom. Rel. (Pa. 2020).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(12) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Lebo, 713 A.2d 1158 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(13) — 11 cases

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 67 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2013). “(quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754). The trial court opined that this condition complies with Section 9754.”

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 95 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “” The court also contended that the PDA was valid under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(13), which provides that the court may order the defendant “to satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his *915 liberty or…”

Commonwealth v. Arter, K., Aplt., 151 A.3d 149 (Pa. 2016).

Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013). “4 Construing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754, which addresses orders of probation, the majority acknowledged that imposition of monetary obligations in this case amounted to restitution under subsection (c)(8) (as condition of probation, court may require defendant “[t]o make restitution of…”

Commonwealth v. Fenton, 750 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(3) — 1 case

Henkels & McCoy, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 738 A.2d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(5) — 1 case

Fross v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 20 A.3d 1193 (Pa. 2011). “2007); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754 (order of probation); 61 Pa.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(7) — 2 cases

Commonwealth v. Crosby, 568 A.2d 233 (Pa. 1990).

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 11 A.3d 519 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(8) — 20 cases

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 155 A.3d 69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “§ 1106(a), or as a condition of probation, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754. When imposed as a sentence, the injury to property or person for which restitution is ordered must directly result from the crime.”

Com. v. Hunt, B., 220 A.3d 582 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Commonwealth v. Popow, 844 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).

Com. v. Mulkin, O., 228 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

Commonwealth v. Hall, 994 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(c)(ll) — 1 case

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9754(d) — 5 cases

Andrews v. Wingard, 249 F. Supp. 3d 806 (E.D. Pa. 2017).

T.S. v. Psp (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).

Com. v. Rodriguez, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

Com. v. Potoczny, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

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.