# Commonwealth v. Elliott

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 19, 2011 · 609 Pa. 499

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2559692

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Robert C. ELLIOTT, Jr., Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 19, 2011
- **Citations:** 609 Pa. 499; 17 A.3d 331; 2011 Pa. LEXIS 130
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2559692

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2559692. Public record. Not legal advice.