§ 3904. Selection of inmate participants.
(a) Duties of commission.--Through the use of sentencing guidelines, the commission shall employ the definition
of "eligible inmate" as provided in this chapter to further identify inmates who would
be appropriate for participation in a motivational boot camp.
(b) Duties of sentencing judge.--The sentencing judge shall employ the sentencing guidelines to identify those defendants
who are eligible for participation in a motivational boot camp. The judge shall have
the discretion to exclude a defendant from eligibility if the judge determines that
the defendant would be inappropriate for placement in a motivational boot camp. The
judge shall note on the sentencing order whether the defendant has been excluded from
eligibility for a motivational boot camp program.
(c) Duties of department.--The secretary shall promulgate rules and regulations providing for inmate selection
criteria and the establishment of motivational boot camp selection committees within
each diagnostic and classification center of the department.
(d) Waiver of eligibility requirements.--
(1) The prosecuting attorney, in the prosecuting attorney's sole discretion, may advise
the court that the Commonwealth has elected to waive the eligibility requirements
of this chapter if the victim has been given notice of the prosecuting attorney's
intent to waive the eligibility requirements and an opportunity to be heard on the
issue.
(2) The court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecuting attorney's
waiver of the eligibility requirements.
(July 5, 2012, P.L.1050, No.122, eff. 60 days; Dec. 18, 2019, P.L.776, No.115, eff.
imd.)
2019 Amendment. Act 115 amended subsec. (b).
2012 Amendment. Act 122 added subsec. (d).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 10 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 10 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2005) (sentencing judge has discretion to determine inmate's threshold eligibility to participate in motivational boot camp pursuant to what is now 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904). The RRRIA defines an eligible offender, in pertinent part, as follows: "Eligible offender.”
Com. v. Petrillo, H. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b). -2- J-S54023-17 1064 (Pa.”
Com. v. Deloatch, L (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Section 3904 gives the trial court two opportunities to exercise its discretion: the ability “to exclude” a defendant who is eligible for the program pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, see 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b), and the ability to “refuse to accept” the prosecuting attorney’s…”
Com. v. Mozeleski, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b). A review of the eligibility provision of the motivational boot camp statute reveals that the length of Appellant’s standard range sentence statutorily precluded the possibility of his participation in boot camp.”
Com. v. McGuire, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(d)(1). Finally, we note that the “court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecuting attorney’s waiver of the eligibility requirements”.”
Com. v. Charles, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b). Before this Court can address a discretionary challenge in sentencing, an appellant must comply with the following requirements: An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3904(b) — 4 cases
Com. v. Mozeleski, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b). A review of the eligibility provision of the motivational boot camp statute reveals that the length of Appellant’s standard range sentence statutorily precluded the possibility of his participation in boot camp.”
Com. v. Charles, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b). Before this Court can address a discretionary challenge in sentencing, an appellant must comply with the following requirements: An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a…”
Com. v. Deloatch, L (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“Section 3904 gives the trial court two opportunities to exercise its discretion: the ability “to exclude” a defendant who is eligible for the program pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, see 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b), and the ability to “refuse to accept” the prosecuting attorney’s…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3904(d)(1) — 3 cases
Com. v. McGuire, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(d)(1). Finally, we note that the “court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecuting attorney’s waiver of the eligibility requirements”.”
Com. v. Deloatch, L (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“Section 3904 gives the trial court two opportunities to exercise its discretion: the ability “to exclude” a defendant who is eligible for the program pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, see 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b), and the ability to “refuse to accept” the prosecuting attorney’s…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3904(d)(2) — 2 cases
Com. v. McGuire, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(d)(1). Finally, we note that the “court, after considering victim input, may refuse to accept the prosecuting attorney’s waiver of the eligibility requirements”.”
Com. v. Deloatch, L (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“Section 3904 gives the trial court two opportunities to exercise its discretion: the ability “to exclude” a defendant who is eligible for the program pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, see 61 Pa.C.S. § 3904(b), and the ability to “refuse to accept” the prosecuting attorney’s…”
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.