setting forth general rule that appellate courts “refuse[] to act on concessions of error without conducting appropriate judicial review”
How later courts described this case
- setting forth general rule that appellate courts “refuse[] to act on concessions of error without conducting appropriate judicial review”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J-A11032-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRIS CARLTON WARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1361 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0000774-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER CARLTON WARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1362 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001059-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER CARLTON WARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1363 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001254-2024
J-A11032-26
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER CARLTON WARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1364 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001255-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER CARLTON WARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1365 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 3, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001607-2024
BEFORE: BECK, J., NEUMAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: APRIL 28, 2026
Christopher Carlton Ward (“Ward”) appeals from the judgments of
sentence imposed by the violation of probation (“VOP”) court following the
revocation of his probation. We vacate and remand for resentencing.
The parties agree that our decision in Commonwealth v.
Goodwin, A.3d , 2026 WL 775409 at *8 (Pa. Super. filed March 19,
2026), which was issued after the parties submitted their briefs, compels us
-2-
J-A11032-26
to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings.1 We
agree the sentence is illegal. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130,
147 (Pa. 2018) (setting forth general rule that appellate courts “refuse[] to
act on concessions of error without conducting appropriate judicial review”).
On January 29, 2025, Appellant entered a global guilty plea to resolve
the five criminal dockets listed in the caption and received an aggregate
sentence of 24 months of probation. On April 25, 2025, the VOP court found
that Appellant violated his probation. See Order, 4/25/25 (single page). This
was his first technical violation. See Commonwealth v. Oglesby, ___ A.3d
____, 2026 WL 847717 (Pa. Super. filed March 27, 2026) (holding that a prior
violation may count for the penalty scheme only if “accompanied by a judicial
finding that the probationer committed a violation”). The VOP court later
resentenced Appellant to the same aggregate sentence of 24 months of
probation.
Subsequently, the VOP court found Appellant in violation of a litany of
technical violations at a single violation hearing, and, on September 3, 2025,
____________________________________________
1 On April 20, 2026, the Commonwealth filed an application to file a
supplemental brief, stating it “can no longer, in good faith, rely upon the
arguments set forth in its brief” due to Goodwin. Application, 4/20/26, at ¶
7. The Commonwealth now “takes the position that the judgments of
sentence imposed … must be vacated and this case must be remanded[.]”
Id., ¶ 8. The Commonwealth stated Appellant’s counsel “is not opposed to
the requested relief,” and “requests that this Honorable Court enter an order
dismissing Appellant’s appeal.” Id., ¶ 10. We thank the Commonwealth for
its candor. Due to our disposition, we DENY AS MOOT the Commonwealth’s
application to the extent it requests permission to file a supplemental brief.
-3-
J-A11032-26
revoked his probation and resentenced him to an aggregate period of 2 to 4
years of incarceration.
Resolving this appeal involves applying the amendments to 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9771, the statute governing revocation of probation. This Court, sitting en
banc, issued Commonwealth v. Seals, ___ A.3d ____, 2026 WL 739101
(Pa. Super. filed Feb. 19, 2026) (en banc), and explained that following these
amendments, (1) a VOP court must first find the Commonwealth has
overcome the statutory presumption against total confinement, and (2)
sentence the violator in accordance with the penalty scheme established by
Section 9771(c)(2)(i-iii), which, as relevant here, allows for a period of
incarceration exceeding thirty days only if the offender has committed “a third
or subsequent technical violation[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c)(2)(iii).
In the interest of judicial economy, we address the second
consideration.2 In Goodwin, we held that a VOP court could not deem three
separate technical violations under Section 9771(c)(1)(iii)(F), adjudicated at
one hearing, as qualifying as a first, second, and third violation for purposes
of the penalty scheme. “Because the legislature clearly intended the statute
at issue to reflect a recidivist philosophy, we agree with Goodwin it would be
an absurd and unintended result to allow the VOP court in effect to give
____________________________________________
2 Appellant also argues that the statutory conditions for overcoming the
presumption against confinement for technical violations were not met. See
Appellant’s Brief at 25-28. Because we conclude Appellant was sentenced
beyond the applicable statutory maximum and has already served more than
that period, whether Appellant is correct on this point is irrelevant.
-4-
J-A11032-26
Goodwin three separate maximum sentences at the same, first hearing on his
multiple, technical probation violations.” Goodwin, 2026 WL 775409. at *8.
That is what occurred here. See VOP Court Opinion, 12/17/25, at 7
(“[P]ursuant to (c)(1)(iii)(F), the technical violation involved an intentional
and unexcused failure to adhere to … conditions on three or more separate
occasions…. As such, having concluded that [Appellant] committed three
technical violations, we can avail ourselves of the sentencing options pursuant
to § 9771(c)(2)(iii).”). The court erred in this regard. This was Appellant’s
second technical violation, and the sentence exceeded the thirty-day
maximum authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c)(2)(ii). Therefore, we vacate
and remand for resentencing.
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded with instructions.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/28/2026
-5-