§ 6137.2. Reentry supervision.
(a) General rule.--This section applies to persons committed to the department with an aggregate minimum
sentence of total confinement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b) (relating to sentence of
total confinement) of 4 years or more. Regardless of the sentence imposed, this section
does not apply to persons sentenced to death, life imprisonment, persons otherwise
ineligible for parole or persons subject to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.5 (relating to mandatory
period of probation for certain sexual offenders).
(b) Reentry supervision.--Any person under subsection (a) shall be sentenced to a period of reentry supervision
of 12 months consecutive to and in addition to any other lawful sentence issued by
the court.
(c) Parole granted.--Persons who have been granted any period of parole by the parole board during the
same period of incarceration shall be deemed to have served the requirements of this
section.
(d) Supervision.--A person released to reentry supervision shall be considered to be released on parole.
(e) Imposition.--The court shall impose reentry supervision in addition to the maximum sentence permitted
for the offense for which the defendant was convicted.
(f) Applicability.--This section shall only apply to persons sentenced after the effective date of this
section.
(Dec. 18, 2019, P.L.776, No.115, eff. imd.)
2019 Amendment. Act 115 added section 6137.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case:
Com. v. Carey, R., 249 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
Com. v. Carey, R., 249 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 6× “He also insists the court’s imposition of a 12-month period of re-entry supervision pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2 is an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.”
Com. v. Carey, R., 2021 Pa. Super. 74 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 6× “He also insists the court’s imposition of a 12-month period of re-entry supervision pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2 is an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.”
Com. v. Blauser, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “See 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence.”
Com. v. Espada, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“On December 9, 2021, the trial court entered an amended judgment of sentence that included additional language regarding reentry supervision pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2. The amended order appears to be erroneously dated as December 1, 2021.”
Com. v. Glenn, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“]” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(b). J-S01037-23 Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Peralta-Agramonte, I. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(a)-(b). Thus, although Appellant had filed a notice of appeal before the amended sentencing orders were issued, we conclude that the court had jurisdiction to correct the patent errors regarding the applicability of section 6137.”
Com. v. Walter, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“____________________________________________ 4 See 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(b). -7- J-S24006-25 Appellant presents four issues for our review, which we have reordered as follows: 1.”
Com. v. Blunt, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).
“ourt explained that the sentence of 5 to 10 years of incarceration was dictated by the combination of the statutory requirement that the minimum sentence “not exceed one-half of the maximum sentence” and the ____________________________________________ 4 The court imposed no…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6137.2(a) — 2 cases
Com. v. Peralta-Agramonte, I. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(a)-(b). Thus, although Appellant had filed a notice of appeal before the amended sentencing orders were issued, we conclude that the court had jurisdiction to correct the patent errors regarding the applicability of section 6137.”
Com. v. Blunt, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026).
“ourt explained that the sentence of 5 to 10 years of incarceration was dictated by the combination of the statutory requirement that the minimum sentence “not exceed one-half of the maximum sentence” and the ____________________________________________ 4 The court imposed no…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6137.2(b) — 2 cases
Com. v. Glenn, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“]” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(b). J-S01037-23 Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Walter, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“____________________________________________ 4 See 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2(b). -7- J-S24006-25 Appellant presents four issues for our review, which we have reordered as follows: 1.”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6137.2(e) — 2 cases
Com. v. Carey, R., 249 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“He also insists the court’s imposition of a 12-month period of re-entry supervision pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2 is an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.”
Com. v. Carey, R., 2021 Pa. Super. 74 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“He also insists the court’s imposition of a 12-month period of re-entry supervision pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.2 is an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.”
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.