J-A08043-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SHAHNAWAZ M. MATHIAS, JR.,

Appellant No. 876 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 21, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006753-2005

BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 28, 2015

I share the concern expressed by the Majority regarding unwritten 

York County probation procedures and fully join the Majority Memorandum.1 

However, I write separately to address an additional procedural oddity 

which, while not affecting the outcome, bears mention.

____________________________________________

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 While we do not reach the constitutionality of the unwritten rule in York 

County, I am compelled to note that such a rule, if enforced, is grossly 

irresponsible. The community trusts that probationers are supervised, and a 

unilateral and secret edict jeopardizes that trust and the safety of the 

community. While admittedly obiter dicta, I am left to question what 

responsibility the county would have in a case where a probationer, who is 

effectively released from supervision under the unwritten rule, commits a 

new crime that could have been prevented through the supervision he or she 

was ordered to receive. This hypothetical calls into question any cost-saving 

intentions the former president judge and director of probation may have 

hoped to achieve. 
J-A08043-15

- 2 -

The Commonwealth asserts that Appellant was aware that his 

probation was stayed, if not by the unwritten York County Rule, by an order 

granting bail. Commonwealth’s Brief at 9 n.2. It appears as though 

Appellant, in his effort to challenge his sentence of probation, posted bail 

while on probation.2 N.T., 9/7/07, at 5-6; N.T., 9/28/07, at 3. Thus, the 

record reveals that Appellant was on bail in this matter from September 7, 

2007 through July 1, 2009, when the Supreme Court denied allowance of 

appeal and the trial court remanded Appellant to the York County 

Department of Probation.3 Commonwealth v. Mathias, 980 A.2d 110, 27 

MAL 2009 (Pa. 2009); Order, 7/9/09. We are unsure why Appellant would 

want bail while serving a sentence of probation, and the reason why the trial 

____________________________________________

2 Bail is typically only contemplated where a sentence of total confinement 

is entered. See Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 521. Here, however, it appears that 

while the trial court discussed remanding Appellant into custody, bail was 

ordered, and total confinement was not imposed at the instant trial court 

docket number. N.T., 9/7/07, at 5-6. 

3

 The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that:

Unless bail is revoked, a bail bond shall be valid until the full and 

final disposition of the case, including all avenues of direct 

appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Comment: The intent of this rule is to continue the validity 

of the bail bond through all avenues of direct appeal in the 

state courts, but to exclude state post-conviction collateral 

proceedings, federal appeals and post-conviction habeas 

corpus proceedings, or any other collateral attacks.

Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 534 and comment. 
J-A08043-15

- 3 -

court ordered bail under the facts of this case is not clear. What is clear, 

however, is that Appellant posted bail and was ostensibly released from the 

conditions of his probation for the 663 days between September 7, 2007 and 

July 1, 2009. 

Therefore, if Appellant was in fact released from the conditions of 

probation, those 663 days may not count toward his maximum probation 

sentence of five years. This calculation would result in Appellant completing 

his five-year sentence of probation on September 8, 2013. These extra 663 

days do not, however, alter the Majority’s conclusion that the 

Commonwealth’s March 14, 2014 petition, concerning an alleged probation 

violation, was filed after Appellant completed his sentence. Therefore, I 

agree with the Majority that Appellant’s April 21, 2014 judgment of sentence 

must be vacated as there was no probation for the trial court to revoke.

Judge Strassburger joins this concurring memorandum.