Criminal Procedure -- Probation Revocation Based on Subsequently Invalidated Criminal Convictions -- Commonwealth v. Royster, 524 Pa. 333, 572 A.2d 683 (1990)

• NCJ Number: 134825
• Journal: Temple Law Review Volume: 64 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1991) Pages: 237-250
• Author(s): J Tanenbaum
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 14 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In Commonwealth v. Royster, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a probation revocation based solely on a criminal conviction is invalid of the conviction is later reversed on double jeopardy grounds. The court reasoned that collateral estoppel principles retroactively rendered such convictions valueless as evidence of a probation violation.

Abstract

The author maintains, however, that the court's reliance on collateral estoppel is unfounded when the reversal is unrelated to the probationer's guilt or innocence, but is simply due to an appellate court's decision based on due process concerns. This ruling undermines the Supreme Court's own directive that determinations of criminal conduct should be left to trial courts to avoid inconsistent outcomes. The author suggests that Pennsylvania's probation policy should allow summary probation revocation following a criminal conviction, but if the conviction is successfully appealed on substantive grounds, the revocation would be nullified. In cases where the conviction was appealed on procedural grounds, the Commonwealth would have the opportunity to present evidence of probation violations at a rehearing of the revocation order. 102 notes