Case ID: pa_625/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

91 A.3d 102
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Ernest SIMMONS, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    April 29, 2014.
    Thomas M. Dickey, Altoona, for Ernest Simmons, Appellant.
    Scott Michael Lilly, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
    BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2014, the Order of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Justice STEVENS files a Concurring Statement.

Justice STEVENS, concurring.

I join this Court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, I wish to emphasize my view that the communication of threats made by a probationer to an intended victim is not a requirement to find the probationer engaged in “assaultive behavior” in violation of the general condition for special probation or parole set forth in 37 Pa.Code § 65.4(5)(iii).