Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771 (2026)

Modification or revocation of 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

SUBCHAPTER F

FURTHER JUDICIAL ACTION

Sec.

9771. Modification or revocation of order of probation.

9771.1. Court-imposed sanctions for violating probation.

9772. Failure to pay fine.

9773. Modification or revocation of county intermediate punishment sentence (Repealed).

9774. Revocation of State intermediate punishment sentence (Repealed).

9774.1. Probation review conference.

9775. Parole without board supervision.

9776. Judicial power to release inmates.

9777. Transfer of inmates in need of medical treatment.

§ 9771. Modification or revocation of order of probation.

(a) General rule.--The court has inherent power to at any time terminate continued supervision, lessen the conditions upon which an order of probation has been imposed or increase the conditions under which an order of probation has been imposed upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a person presents an identifiable threat to public safety.

(b) Revocation.--The court may increase the conditions, impose a brief sanction under section 9771.1 (relating to court-imposed sanctions for violating probation) or revoke an order of probation upon proof of the violation of specified conditions of the probation. Subject to the limitations of subsections (b.1) and (c), upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing, due consideration being given to the time spent serving the order of probation. The attorney for the Commonwealth may file notice at any time prior to resentencing of the Commonwealth's intention to proceed under an applicable provision of law requiring a mandatory minimum sentence.

(b.1) Nonpayment of fines or costs.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the court may not extend the period of probation, may not impose a brief sanction under section 9771.1 and may not revoke an order of probation solely due to nonpayment of fines or costs unless the court finds, with respect to the payment of fines, the defendant is financially able to pay the fines and has willfully refused to do so.

(c) Limitation on sentence of total confinement.--There is a presumption against total confinement for technical violations of probation. The following shall apply:

(1) The court may impose a sentence of total confinement upon revocation only if:

(i) the defendant has been convicted of another crime;

(ii) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed a technical violation that involves an identifiable threat to public safety and the defendant cannot be safely diverted from total confinement through less restrictive means; or

(iii) the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a technical violation and any of the following apply:

(A) The technical violation was sexual in nature.

(B) The technical violation involved assaultive behavior or included a credible threat to cause bodily injury to another, including acts committed against a family or household member.

(D) The technical violation involved the manufacture, sale, delivery or possession with the intent to manufacture, sell or deliver, a controlled substance or other drug regulated under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

(E) The defendant absconded and cannot be safely diverted from total confinement through less restrictive means.

(F) The technical violation involved an intentional and unexcused failure to adhere to recommended programming or conditions on three or more separate occasions and the defendant cannot be safely diverted from total confinement through less restrictive means. For purposes of this clause, multiple technical violations stemming from the same episode of events shall not constitute separate technical violations.

(2) If a court imposes a sentence of total confinement following a revocation, the basis of which is for one or more technical violations under paragraph (1)(ii) or (iii), the court shall consider the employment status of the defendant. The defendant shall be sentenced as follows:

(i) For a first technical violation, a maximum period of 14 days.

(ii) For a second technical violation, a maximum period of 30 days.

(iii) For a third or subsequent technical violation, the court may impose any sentencing alternatives available at the time of initial sentencing.

(iv) The time limitations contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the extent that a reasonable term of additional total confinement, not to exceed 30 days, is necessary to allow a defendant to either be evaluated for or to participate in:

(A) a court-ordered drug, alcohol or mental health treatment program; or

(B) a treatment court provided for in section 916 (relating to treatment courts).

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the adoption of a program under section 9771.1.

(d) Hearing required.--There shall be no revocation or increase of conditions of sentence under this section except after a hearing at which the court shall consider the record of the sentencing proceeding together with evidence of the conduct of the defendant while on probation. Probation may be eliminated or the term decreased without a hearing.

(Dec. 18, 2019, P.L.776, No.115, eff. imd.; Dec. 14, 2023, P.L.381, No.44, eff. 180 days; July 21, 2025, P.L.127, No.38, eff. 90 days)

2025 Amendment. Act 38 amended subsec. (c)(2)(iv)(B).

2023 Amendment. Act 44 amended subsecs. (a), (b) and (c) and added subsec. (b.1). 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.

Cross References. Section 9771 is referred to in sections 9771.1, 9774.1 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 401 cases (110 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 16× “[2] We began *71 our analysis by citing to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 and its provision that "upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing.”

Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “¶ 7 When imposing a sentence of total confinement after a probation revocation, the sentencing court is to consider the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, supra.”

Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 8× “Upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing, due consideration being given to the time spent serving the order of probation.”

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “In doing so, the High Court first acknowledged that it had “long maintained that the appellate scope of review of the sentencing decision should be limited to sentences that exceeded the statutorily prescribed limits or sentences which were so manifestly excessive as to…”

Commonwealth v. Wallace, 870 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 6× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 (emphasis added). Likewise, this Court has explicitly stated that "upon revocation of probation, the court possesses *843 the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the initial sentencing.”

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 4× “Compare 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 ("Upon revocation [of probation] the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing.”

Clark, C. v. Peugh, W., 2021 Pa. Super. 131 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 6× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(a) (emphasis added).5 In Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “¶ 5 In the first question presented for our review, Appellant claims that the trial court violated the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 when it imposed a sentence of total confinement following the revocation *738 of Appellant's probation.”

Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c). Thus, Section 9771(c) mandates a VOP court’s consideration of additional factors at sentencing not addressed by Section 9721(b).”

Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “¶ 20 It becomes apparent by reading the progression of these cases that once the prohibition against extending sentences due to double jeopardy considerations was removed, the statutory language of 42 Pa. C.S. § 9771 6 became paramount. As noted earlier, the language of section…”

Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9771(C). ¶ 16 “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…”

Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(b). See also Commonwealth v.”

Show all 401 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(C) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). “42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9771(C). ¶ 16 “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…”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(a) — 33 cases

Clark, C. v. Peugh, W., 2021 Pa. Super. 131 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(a) (emphasis added).5 In Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “¶ 5 In the first question presented for our review, Appellant claims that the trial court violated the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 when it imposed a sentence of total confinement following the revocation *738 of Appellant's probation.”

Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005). “Upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing, due consideration being given to the time spent serving the order of probation.”

Commonwealth v. Concordia, 97 A.3d 366 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

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

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(b) — 192 cases

Commonwealth v. Mazzetti, 44 A.3d 58 (Pa. 2012). “[2] We began *71 our analysis by citing to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 and its provision that "upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing.”

Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “¶ 7 When imposing a sentence of total confinement after a probation revocation, the sentencing court is to consider the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, supra.”

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007). “Compare 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 ("Upon revocation [of probation] the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c) — 184 cases

Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c). Thus, Section 9771(c) mandates a VOP court’s consideration of additional factors at sentencing not addressed by Section 9721(b).”

Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(b). See also Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).

Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1) — 21 cases

Com. v. Seals, J., 2026 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

Com. v. Chambers, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. Lennex, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).

Com. v. Oglesby, S., 2026 Pa. Super. 62 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

Com. v. Moore, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1)(F) — 1 case

Com. v. McCloskey, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1)(i) — 4 cases

Com. v. Bullard, B. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

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

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

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

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1)(ii) — 1 case

Com. v. Clayborne, L., 2026 Pa. Super. 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1)(iii)(B) — 1 case

Com. v. Clayborne, L., 2026 Pa. Super. 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(1)(iii)(F) — 3 cases

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

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

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

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(2) — 21 cases

Commonwealth v. Banks, 198 A.3d 391 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

Com. v. Seals, J., 2026 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

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

Com. v. Thimons, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(2)(i) — 1 case

Com. v. Mann, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(2)(ii) — 2 cases

Com. v. Ward, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

Com. v. Oglesby, S., 2026 Pa. Super. 62 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(2)(iii) — 4 cases

Com. v. Seals, J., 2026 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

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

Com. v. Ward, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

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

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(2)(iv) — 1 case

Com. v. Clayborne, L., 2026 Pa. Super. 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(3) — 9 cases

Com. v. Bigio, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).

Com. v. Casper, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

Com. v. Illingworth, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. Reed, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. Merrick, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(ii) — 1 case

Com. v. Fitzpatrick, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(c)(iv) — 1 case

Com. v. Seals, J., 2026 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(d) — 21 cases

Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).

Commonwealth v. Miller, 516 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 1986).

Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt., 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017).

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K. (Pa. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771(j) — 1 case

Com. v. Pittman, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

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.