Opinion

Commonwealth v. Elliott

  • 609 Pa. 499
  • 17 A.3d 331
  • 2011 Pa. LEXIS 130
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 19, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Per Curiam
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.2%

The opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court’s reliance on 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754 in its holding in

Commonwealth v. Vilsaint,

893 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super.2006) and

Commonwealth v. MacGregor,

912 A.2d 315 (Pa.Super.2006) that only the court, and not probation officers, can impose the terms of probation is in conflict with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798.3, enacted in 2007, which directs that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and County probation authorities in Megan’s Law may impose supervision conditions that include offender tracking.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.