Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ¶ 11 The measure of delay extends from the defendant’s date of conviction or entry of a guilty plea on the new charges to the date the court holds the revocation hearing. Commonwealth v. explanation for the delay, the court should not attribute the delay to the defendant; instead, the court should analyze whether the delay prejudiced the defendant. Woods, supra. ¶ 13 To demonstrate a violation of his right to a speedy probation revocation hearing, a defendant must allege and prove the delay in holding the revocation hearing prejudiced him. Woods, supra at 1229; Clark, supra at 125; Bischof, supra at 9. There is no per se rule of prejudice for technical violations of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Commonwealth v. Marchesano, 519 Pa. 1, 7-8, 544 A.2d 1333, 1336-37 (1988) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he controlling consideration at a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum (B) holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence (C) holding that where defendant admitted to two violations of probation and was sentenced therefor court could not enter second order of revocation and resentence defendant on third charge of violation of probation which was pending at time defendants probation was first revoked (D) holding that revocation of probation is merely an extension of a sentencing proceeding (E) holding defendant cannot establish prejudice merely by alleging court held probation revocation hearing after defendants period of probation expired
Output (English): holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence