42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4
Assessments (Expired).
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
PA-LEGpalegis.us
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 9795.4. Assessments (Expired).
2012 Expiration. Section 9795.4 expired December 20, 2012. See Act 111 of 2011.
2013 Unconstitutionality. Act 152 of 2004 was declared unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). The unconstitutionality took effect March 17, 2014.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Krouse
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police (2016)
“Furthermore, 42 Pa.C.S §9795.4 states, “[a]fter conviction, but before sentencing, a court shall order an individual convicted of an offense specified in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Shugars (2006)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9795.4(a). During the assessment, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board conducts an examination of the following factors: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims.”
Commonwealth v. Williams (2003)
“While it must be acknowledged that the procedures whereby an individual is potentially subjected to registration, notification, and counseling are triggered only after conviction of a predicate offense, see 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Maldonado (2003)
“1 See 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9795.4(a), 9795.1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to order the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (the “Board”) to evaluate whether Maldonado was a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Haughwout (2003)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). Krouse, 799 A.”
Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole (2008)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 9795.1(a)(3), 9795.”
Dodgson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2007)
“Dodgson (Dodgson) requesting that this Court direct the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas Corbett (collectively Respondents) to reconsider him for parole…”
Commonwealth v. Sanford (2004)
“Subsequently, hearings were held pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4 to determine whether Appellee was an SVP.”
Commonwealth v. Brooks (2010)
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). The administrative officer of the Assessment Board then assigns one of its members to conduct the assessment pursuant to Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. P.L.S. (2006)
“Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(f), a copy of the SOAB assessment “shall be provided to the agency preparing the pre-sentence investigation,” and therefore, it may be utilized by the court as an aid at sentencing.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(a) — 16 cases
A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police (2016)
“Furthermore, 42 Pa.C.S §9795.4 states, “[a]fter conviction, but before sentencing, a court shall order an individual convicted of an offense specified in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Maldonado (2003)
“1 See 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9795.4(a), 9795.1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to order the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (the “Board”) to evaluate whether Maldonado was a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Brooks (2010)
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). The administrative officer of the Assessment Board then assigns one of its members to conduct the assessment pursuant to Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Shugars (2006)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9795.4(a). During the assessment, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board conducts an examination of the following factors: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b) — 23 cases
Commonwealth v. Shugars (2006)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9795.4(a). During the assessment, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board conducts an examination of the following factors: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims.”
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
Commonwealth v. Williams (2003)
“While it must be acknowledged that the procedures whereby an individual is potentially subjected to registration, notification, and counseling are triggered only after conviction of a predicate offense, see 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Maldonado (2003)
“1 See 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9795.4(a), 9795.1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to order the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (the “Board”) to evaluate whether Maldonado was a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 9795.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(1)(iv) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(1)(vii) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(2) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(l) — 1 case
Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole (2008)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 9795.1(a)(3), 9795.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(b)(l)(vii) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Meals (2006)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(a). In conducting the assessment, the assigned Board member must consider the factors set forth in Section 9795.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(c) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Ramadan (2005)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(d) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Baird (2004)
Commonwealth v. Peters (2006)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(e) — 8 cases
Commonwealth v. Shugars (2006)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9795.4(a). During the assessment, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board conducts an examination of the following factors: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims.”
A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police (2016)
“Furthermore, 42 Pa.C.S §9795.4 states, “[a]fter conviction, but before sentencing, a court shall order an individual convicted of an offense specified in Section 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole (2008)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 9795.1(a)(3), 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Haughwout (2003)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). Krouse, 799 A.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(e)(1) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Sanford (2004)
“Subsequently, hearings were held pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4 to determine whether Appellee was an SVP.”
Commonwealth v. Mullins (2006)
Commonwealth v. Breyer (2001)
Com. v. Jacobs, M. (2022)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(e)(2) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Maldonado (2003)
“1 See 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9795.4(a), 9795.1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to order the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (the “Board”) to evaluate whether Maldonado was a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 9795.”
Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole (2008)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 9795.1(a)(3), 9795.”
Commonwealth v. Masker (2011)
Commonwealth v. Holizna (2005)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(e)(3) — 16 cases
Commonwealth v. Krouse (2002)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). ¶ 11 The most significant change in the SVP classification procedures was the shift in the burden of proof.”
Commonwealth v. Williams (2003)
“While it must be acknowledged that the procedures whereby an individual is potentially subjected to registration, notification, and counseling are triggered only after conviction of a predicate offense, see 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Haughwout (2003)
“42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4((e)(2)). Krouse, 799 A.”
Commonwealth v. Kopicz (2003)
Commonwealth v. Wilson (2006)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(f) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. P.L.S. (2006)
“Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.4(f), a copy of the SOAB assessment “shall be provided to the agency preparing the pre-sentence investigation,” and therefore, it may be utilized by the court as an aid at sentencing.”
Commonwealth v. Shugars (2006)
“See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9795.4(a). During the assessment, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board conducts an examination of the following factors: (1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims.”
Com. v. PLS (2006)
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9795.4(g) — 4 cases
Dodgson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2007)
“Dodgson (Dodgson) requesting that this Court direct the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas Corbett (collectively Respondents) to reconsider him for parole…”
Commonwealth v. Mullins (2006)
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.