J-S24037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN PHILLIP WOLFE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1447 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 13, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-21-CR-0000290-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023

Appellant John Phillip Wolfe appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County following the 

revocation of his probation and resentencing on his 2020 conviction for flight 

to avoid apprehension, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5126(a). After a careful review, we

find no error in the trial court revoking Appellant’s probation;1 however, 

because the trial court imposed an illegal sentence upon resentencing 

Appellant, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On August 13, 

2020, Appellant, who was represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to the 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 As discussed infra, Appellant does not dispute he violated his probation.
J-S24037-23

- 2 -

sole charge of flight to avoid apprehension, which was graded as a seconddegree misdemeanor.2 At the guilty plea hearing, the prosecutor set forth the 

facts underlying Appellant’s charge as follows:

In [the instant case, at lower court docket number CP-21-

CR-0000290-2020,] the police had a warrant for [Appellant’s] 

arrest based on the facts of [CP-21-CR-0000291-2020, which is 

related to Appellant’s assault of Jason Mellott]. The police spoke 

to family members looking for [Appellant] and talked to 

[Appellant] on the phone several times. [Appellant] knew he was 

wanted and refused to turn himself in. Furthermore, [Appellant] 

told the police that they would not catch him.

[Appellant] was later found in Delaware. The involvement 

of the police and—at least the involvement of the police occurred 

in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 

N.T., 8/13/20, at 4.

After accepting Appellant’s guilty plea, the trial court immediately 

sentenced Appellant to two years of supervised probation for the instant 

matter. The sentence was imposed consecutively to Appellant’s sentence for 

simple assault at lower court docket number CP-21-CR-0000291-2020.

3

 

Appellant did not file a direct appeal to this Court.

Thereafter, on September 8, 2022, while Appellant was serving the 

probation sentence for his flight to avoid apprehension conviction in the 

____________________________________________

2 On the same date, Appellant also entered a guilty plea to a charge of simple 

assault at lower court docket number CP-21-CR-0000291-2020.

3 For the simple assault charge docketed at CP-21-CR-0000291-2020, the trial 

court sentenced Appellant to one year less one day to two years less one day 

in prison. The trial court indicated that Appellant was eligible for the work 

release program. It is undisputed Appellant completed this sentence. 
J-S24037-23

- 3 -

instant matter, Appellant’s probation officer filed a petition to revoke 

Appellant’s probation on the following bases:

1. [Appellant] failed to submit to testing for drug/alcohol as 

directed by the probation officer. [Appellant] may not use any 

synthetic, mood, or mind altering substances or any controlled 

substances without a valid prescription. To wit,

• On 8/16/22, [Appellant] refused to provide a sample.

• On 8/22/22, [Appellant] failed to provide an adequate sample.

• On 8/24/22, [Appellant] tested positive and admitted to the 

use of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

2. [Appellant] failed to report as directed by the probation officer, 

to wit,

• On 9/22/22 and 9/6/22, [Appellant] failed to report to the 

office as directed and therefor[e] failed to report for drug 

testing.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/7/22, at 2 (footnote omitted) (citing Petition for 

Revocation from Probation, filed 9/8/22). 

On September 13, 2022, Appellant, who was represented by counsel, 

proceeded to a probation revocation hearing. At the hearing, Appellant 

admitted he tested positive for drugs. N.T., 9/13/22, at 4. Accordingly, the 

trial court found Appellant committed a violation of his probation and revoked 

his probation.

4

 Id. 

____________________________________________

4

In Commonwealth v. Foster, 654 Pa. 266, 214 A.3d 1240 (2019), our 

Supreme Court examined the statutory framework governing probation 

revocations and concluded that “a court may find a defendant in violation of 

probation only if the defendant has violated one of the specific conditions of 

probation included in the probation order or has committed a new crime.” Id.

at 1250; see also Commonwealth v. Koger, 15 WAP 2022, 2023 WL 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S24037-23

- 4 -

Regarding resentencing Appellant for his flight to avoid apprehension 

conviction, the probation officer recommended that Appellant be “resentenced 

to a period of incarceration for three (3) to twelve (12) months.” Id. at 2-3. 

Although the trial court indicated it was “honoring” the probation officer’s 

recommendation, the trial court resentenced Appellant to three (3) months to 

twenty-three (23) months in prison to be followed by one (1) year of 

supervised probation for the flight to avoid apprehension conviction. Id. at 3-

4. This timely appeal followed on October 13, 2022, and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 

requirements have been met.

On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issue in his “Statement of 

the Questions Presented” (verbatim):

I. Whether the sentencing court erred in resentencing the 

Defendant to imprisonment for not less than three months 

nor more than twenty-three months, followed by a 

consecutive period of one year supervised probation on 

Count 2 flight to avoid apprehension graded as a 

misdemeanor of the second degree?

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (bold, unnecessary capitalization, and suggested answer 

omitted).

____________________________________________

4193028 (Pa. 2023). Here, Appellant does not dispute that, as a condition of 

his probation, he “may not use any synthetic, mood, or mind altering 

substances or any controlled substances without a valid prescription.” Trial 

Court Opinion, filed 12/7/22, at 2. He also does not dispute he violated this 

provision when, on August 24, 2022, he tested positive and admitted to the 

use of methamphetamine and amphetamine. Id. 
J-S24037-23

- 5 -

On appeal, Appellant specifically contends that, following the revocation 

of his probation for flight to avoid apprehension, the trial court imposed a 

sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum, and thus, his sentence is 

illegal. Accordingly, Appellant requests we vacate the judgment of sentence 

and remand for resentencing. 

Initially, we note the following relevant legal precepts:

Following probation violation proceedings, this Court’s scope 

of review is limited to verifying the validity of the proceeding and 

the legality of the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v.

Heilman, 876 A.2d 1021 (Pa.Super. 2005). “The defendant or the 

Commonwealth may appeal as of right the legality of the 

sentence.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(a). As long as the reviewing 

court has jurisdiction, a challenge to the legality of the sentence

is non-waivable and the court can even raise and address it sua

sponte. Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 

(Pa.Super. 2001). “Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are 

questions of law....” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 945 A.2d 

252, 256 (Pa.Super. 2008)[.] As with all questions of law on 

appeal, our “standard of review is de novo and our scope of review 

is plenary.” Id.

“A claim that implicates the fundamental legal authority of 

the court to impose a particular sentence constitutes a challenge 

to the legality of the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Catt, 994 

A.2d 1158, 1160 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc). “If no statutory

authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is 

illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be 

vacated.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 

174, 178–79 (Pa.Super. 2008)). Likewise, a sentence that 

exceeds the statutory maximum is illegal. Commonwealth v.

Bradley, 575 Pa. 141, 834 A.2d 1127 (2003). If a court “imposes 

a sentence outside of the legal parameters prescribed by the 

applicable statute, the sentence is illegal and should be remanded

for correction.” Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 560 Pa. 381, 388, 

744 A.2d 1280, 1284 (2000).

Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa.Super. 2013).
J-S24037-23

- 6 -

Once probation has been revoked, a sentence of total confinement may 

be imposed if the defendant has been convicted of another crime, to vindicate 

the authority of the court, or the conduct of the defendant indicates it is likely 

he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned.5 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9771(c)(1)-(3). Moreover, as we discussed in Commonwealth v. Crump,

995 A.2d 1280 (Pa.Super. 2010), “while the language of [42 Pa.C.S.A. §] 9760

does not discuss an illegal sentence or the situation where a person receives

a new sentence as a result of a probation violation, our case law analyzing the

statute has outlined the necessary considerations we must make in

determining whether a sentence is illegal.” Id. at 1284.

Our statutory and case law are clear. Subsequent to revocation of 

probation, the sentencing court has available to it all the options 

permissible at the time of initial sentencing, giving due 

consideration “to the time spent serving the order of probation.”

42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(b).[6] As long as the new sentence imposed 

does not exceed the statutory maximum when factoring in the

incarcerated time already served, the sentence is not illegal. 

Additionally, the sentencing court cannot give a new split sentence 

where the period of incarceration and period of probation exceed 

the statutory maximum.

____________________________________________

5

In the case sub judice, Appellant does not dispute the trial court had the 

authority to impose a sentence of total confinement upon the revocation of 

his probation. 

6 To clarify, this Court has held that “the sentencing court at the time of resentencing [upon a violation of probation] must give ‘due consideration’ to the

time the defendant spent serving probation, but need not credit the defendant

with any time spent on probation.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1284 (determining 

the defendant’s “original probationary sentence ha[d] no effect on

determining the legality of his subsequent revocation sentence”).
J-S24037-23

- 7 -

Id. at 1285 (internal citations omitted) (footnote added).

The statutory maximum period for flight to avoid apprehension-a 

misdemeanor of the second degree-is two years’ imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 1104(2). Accordingly, in sentencing Appellant after the revocation of his 

probation, the trial court was limited by the statutory maximum of 2 years.

Appellant was originally sentenced to two years of supervised probation 

for the instant matter without any jail time. As indicated supra, while the trial 

court was required to give “due consideration” to the two years of supervised 

probation already served by Appellant, it was not required to credit Appellant 

upon revocation for the time spent on probation. Crump, supra. Still, we 

agree with Appellant that the trial court’s sentence imposed upon revocation 

is illegal.7

It is well-settled that a court may impose a split sentence, a sentence 

that includes a period of incarceration as well as a period of probation. 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001, 1004 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2009). 

However, the sentencing court cannot give a new split sentence where the 

period of incarceration and period of probation exceed the statutory 

maximum. Crump, 995 A.2d at 1285 (internal citations omitted). For 

____________________________________________

7 On appeal, the Commonwealth concurs with Appellant’s assessment, and 

therefore, the Commonwealth requests that we vacate the judgment of 

sentence and remand for Appellant to be resentenced. See Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 5-6. Furthermore, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) opinion, the trial court 

suggests Appellant’s revocation sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/7/22, at 3.
J-S24037-23

- 8 -

example, as we explained in Crump, “where the maximum is ten years, a 

defendant cannot receive a term of incarceration of three to six years followed

by five years [of] probation.” Id. at 1284.

Accordingly, in the case sub judice, where the statutory maximum is 

two years, the trial court erred in sentencing Appellant upon the revocation of 

his probation to three (3) months to twenty-three (23) months in prison to be 

followed by one (1) year of supervised probation. Appellant faces the potential 

of serving two years and eleven months punishment for his flight to avoid 

apprehension offense, thereby exceeding the statutory maximum punishment

of two years for second-degree misdemeanors. Therefore, we conclude 

Appellant’s sentence is illegal.

Consequently, although we conclude the trial court properly revoked 

Appellant’s probation, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for 

resentencing. 

Order revoking probation affirmed; judgment of sentence vacated; case 

remanded for resentencing; jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/01/2023