J-S14025-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1044 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000773-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1045 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000772-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1046 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000771-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA
J-S14025-22

- 2 -

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1047 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000568-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1048 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000567-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1049 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000566-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA
J-S14025-22

- 3 -

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ JR. 

Appellant

:

:

: No. 1050 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000565-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BYRON EDWARD FRANTZ 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1051 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 18, 2021

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

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000090-2006

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: JULY 29, 2022

In these consolidated appeals,1 Byron Edward Frantz (Appellant) 

appeals from the judgments of sentence imposed in the Jefferson County 

Court of Common Pleas, following the revocations of his probation at eight 

trial court dockets. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion 

when it imposed a manifestly excessive sentence for technical violations of 

the conditions of his probation. Because we are unable to ascertain from the 

record before us whether Appellant was still serving probationary terms at 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte. See Order, 10/1/21.
J-S14025-22

- 4 -

some of the trial court dockets at the time he was charged with violating his 

probation, we vacate the judgments of sentence, and remand the matter to 

the trial court for further clarification and resentencing.

In November and December of 2006, Appellant committed a series of 

crimes in Jefferson County, which led to charges of, inter alia, burglary, theft, 

and forgery,2 spanning eight separate trial court dockets. He subsequently 

entered a guilty plea in each case. On May 17, 2006, Appellant pled guilty to 

three counts of burglary at trial docket CP-33-CR-0000090-2006 (Docket 90-

2006), and was sentenced to a term of seven months to two years’ less one 

day imprisonment, followed by three years’ plus one day probation. In 

September of 2006, Appellant’s probation was revoked following a violation, 

and he was resentenced to a term of two and one-half to five years’ 

imprisonment followed by five years’ consecutive probation. Thus, it appears 

that Appellant’s consecutive term of five years’ probation, absent any further 

violations, would have expired in 2016.

3

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502, 3921, and 4101(a)(2).

3 We note the record for Docket 90-2006 contains a document entitled 

“Request for Special Probation/Parole Supervision,” which was signed by the 

trial court on April 14, 2010. See Request for Special Probation/Parole 

Supervision, 4/14/10, at 2 (unpaginated). That document indicates that 

Appellant’s concurrent probationary sentences for two counts of burglary 

began on January 2, 2011, and would expire on January 2, 2016. See id. at 

1 (unpaginated).

The record at Docket 90-2006 also includes a Detainer issued on 

February 7, 2020, directing that Appellant be detained pending a hearing to 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S14025-22

- 5 -

On April 4, 2007, Appellant entered guilty pleas for the remaining seven 

dockets. At trial dockets CP-33-CR-0000565-2006, CP-33-CR-0000566-2006,

CP-33-CR-0000567-2006, and CP-33-CR-0000568-2006 (collectively, 

Dockets 565-568-2006), Appellant entered a guilty plea to four counts of 

burglary, one at each docket, and was sentenced to five terms of five years’ 

probation, to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the 

sentence imposed at Docket 90-2006. See Guilty Plea Colloquy, 3/28/07, at 

8 (unpaginated). At trial dockets CP-33-CR-0000771-2006 and CP-33-CR0000772-2006 (collectively, Dockets 771-772-2006), Appellant pled guilty to 

two counts of theft, and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of one year 

probation, to be served consecutively to the sentence at Docket 90-2006. Id. 

Lastly, at trial docket CP-33-CR-0000773-2006 (Docket 773-2006), Appellant 

entered a guilty plea to one count of forgery. He was sentenced to a term of 

five years’ probation, to be served concurrently with the probationary 

sentences imposed at Dockets 565-568-2006 and Dockets 771-772-2006, and 

consecutive to the sentence at Docket 90-2006. Id. Therefore, it appears 

that Appellant would have completed serving his one-year probationary terms 

at Dockets 771-772-2006 in 2017, but his five-year probationary terms at 

Dockets 565-568-2006 and 773-2006 would not have expired until 2021.

____________________________________________

determine if “Probable Cause exists to believe that he is in Contempt for NonPayment.” Detainer, 2/7/20. Thereafter, on March 20, 2020, the court 

entered an order withdrawing the detainer, directing Appellant be released 

from prison, and ordering him to contact “Jefferson County Probation to 

establish a pay plan.” Order to Withdraw Detainer, 3/20/20.
J-S14025-22

- 6 -

On July 26, 2021, Appellant’s probation officer filed a notice of a 

Gagnon I hearing4for Dockets 90-2006, 565-2006, 568-2006, and 773-206, 

as well as a Notice of Charges, alleging Appellant violated the following 

conditions of his probation: (1) failed to report to probation as instructed in 

December of 2020; (2) changed his residence without permission in December 

of 2020; (3) failed to maintain employment or notify his probation officer of 

loss of employment in December of 2020; (4) failed to abide by his payment 

plan, as his last payment was received in September of 2019; and (5) failed 

to refrain from using controlled substances, namely Appellant called an 

ambulance “due to overdosing on Heroin” in July of 2021. See Notice of 

Preliminary Hearing (Gagnon I), 7/26/21; Notice of Charges & Hearing Rights 

& Written Request for Revocation, 7/26/21. On August 3, 2021, Fred Hummel, 

Esquire, entered his appearance on behalf of Appellant.

A Gagnon I hearing was scheduled for August 4, 2021. Appellant 

appeared before the trial court, waived the Gagnon I hearing, and “admit[ed] 

to the violations charged[.]” Gagnon Order, 8/6/21. Notably, the court’s 

Gagnon order listed all of the trial court dockets at issue herein. Id. The 

order also directed Adult Probation to conduct a Pre-Sentence Investigation 

Report (PSI) and scheduled the Gagnon II hearing for August 18, 2021. Id.

____________________________________________

4 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). This notice was preceded 

by a Bench Warrant, issued on January 26, 2021, directing that Appellant be 

“arrested and detained” pending a Gagnon I hearing for his alleged violations. 

Bench Warrant, 1/26/21.
J-S14025-22

- 7 -

At the August 18th hearing, Attorney Hummel noted that, although an 

updated PSI was prepared, Appellant’s version of the violations was not 

included because, purportedly, a request had been faxed to the prison with 

insufficient time for Appellant to respond. See N.T., 8/18/21, at 3-4. He 

requested the trial court “not . . . hold anything against [Appellant due to] the 

fact that he hasn’t responded in writing.” Id. at 4. Notably, Attorney Hummel 

did not request a continuance of the hearing so that Appellant could formally 

respond. 

Rather, Attorney Hummel argued that it was “known” Appellant had 

“drug problems” at the time of the original PSI, dated July 25, 2006, and

asserted that the criminal acts at issue were “no doubt” a result of his drug 

use. N.T., 8/18/21, at 5. He pointed out, however, there was no update 

regarding Appellant’s “current situation [or] health status.” Id. Attorney 

Hummel requested the court impose a sentence “such that [Appellant would] 

be eligible for the state drug treatment program.” Id. at 6. 

Thereafter, the court provided Appellant with the opportunity to speak 

on his own behalf. N.T., 8/18/21, at 6. Appellant stated that he “did good for 

years” when he was released in 2008. Id. He claimed: “I kind of had an idea 

I was supposed to be on probation when I maxed out, but they told me I 

wasn’t.”5 Id. Appellant stated he did not “relapse again until [he] knew 

probation was looking for” him. Id. He further told the court that he 

____________________________________________

5 Appellant did not specify who “they” were.
J-S14025-22

- 8 -

understood he had a “bad criminal history,” but that he “made it a point not 

to commit . . . new crimes.” Id.

Before imposing Appellant’s revocation sentence, the trial court 

emphasized Appellant’s “bad prior record,” as well as the fact that he 

“continually dabble[d] in drugs” and “other than a few times, . . . never really 

had a job[.]” N.T., 8/18/21, at 7-8; see id. at 8 (“You committed Felony 1 

robberies and a lot of burglaries. I think that’s how you lived.”). The court

further noted that while it was unsure whether Appellant suffered from 

addiction, it intended to impose a sentence in state prison where Appellant 

could receive treatment “as long as [he] admit[ted he had] a problem[;]” in 

fact, the court recommended Appellant for “the state drug treatment 

program.” Id. at 7-9. The court also rejected Appellant’s claim that he did 

not know he was on probation, commenting:

You’re impossible to manage on probation. You knew you had 

probation. That part of you is a pure lie.

You knew you had probation. You knew you were going to 

avoid it until you got picked up, and then how did you get picked 

up, by an overdose.

That’s [your] life in a nutshell, new crime or overdose. . . .

Id. at 9.

The trial court revoked Appellant’s probationary sentences at each of 

the dockets listed above, and imposed the following sentences: (1) at Docket 

773-2006, a term of three and one-half to seven years’ imprisonment for 

forgery; (2) at Docket 772-2006, a consecutive term of six months’ to one 
J-S14025-22

- 9 -

year imprisonment for theft; (3) at Docket 771-2006, a consecutive term of 

six months’ to one year imprisonment for theft; and (4) at Dockets 90-2006, 

and 565-568-2005, a term of one year probation for each count, imposed 

concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the prison sentence imposed at 

Docket 771-2006. See Gagnon Order, 8/18/21. Therefore, the court 

imposed an aggregate sentence of four and one-half to nine years’

imprisonment, followed by one year of probation. 

On August 24, 2021, Appellant filed a timely motion to reconsider his 

sentence, asserting the aggregate sentence was “excessive for the technical 

violations to which he admitted[,] not appropriate under the Sentencing 

Code[, and] clearly unreasonable . . . as the sentence was not individualized 

. . . by failing to give due weight and consideration to [his] rehabilitative needs 

and mental condition[.]” Appellant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence, 8/24/21, 

at 2 (unpaginated). The trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s 

motion that same day. See Order, 8/24/21. This timely appeal follows.6

Appellant presents one issue for our review:

Whether the [trial c]ourt erred by sentencing [Appellant] to 

an aggregate sentence of 4 1⁄2 to 9 years incarceration as such 

aggregate sentence is contrary to the fundamental norms which 

underlie the sentencing process, was not individualized to 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant filed separate notices of appeal at each docket on September 1, 

2021, less than 30 days after sentence was imposed. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 

708(E) (motion to modify sentence filed after revocation does not toll 30-day 

appeal period). Appellant also timely complied with the trial court’s directive 

to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

at each docket. 
J-S14025-22

- 10 -

[Appellant] and clearly unreasonable as the [c]ourt failed to give 

due weight and consideration to [Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs 

and mental condition; and, the sentence is manifestly excessive 

and inflicts too severe a punishment as it is disproportionate to 

the violations committed which were all of a technical nature[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4.7

Our review of a sentence imposed following the revocation of probation 

is limited to consideration of “the validity of the revocation proceedings, the 

legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge to 

the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v. 

Simmons, 262 A.3d 512, 515 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

Although Appellant challenges only the discretionary aspects of his probation 

revocation sentence, this Court may consider the legality of a sentence sua 

sponte. See Commonwealth v. Randal, 837 A.2d 1211, 1214 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (en banc) (“[C]hallenges to [a]n illegal sentence can never be waived 

and by be reviewed sua sponte by this Court.”) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted).

It is axiomatic that a trial court has no authority to revoke a defendant’s 

probation based on conduct that occurred after the term of probation had 

expired. See Commonwealth v. Mathias, 121 A.3d 558, 563 (Pa. Super. 

2015). Thus, if a trial court lacks the authority to revoke probation, any 

sentence imposed as a result thereof is illegal. Id. 

____________________________________________

7 The Commonwealth declined to file a responsive brief in this matter, and, 

instead informed the Superior Court Prothonotary by letter that it “completely 

concurs and relies upon the trial court’s well-reasoned Opinion[.]” Letter from 

Commonwealth to Prothonotary, 4/6/22.
J-S14025-22

- 11 -

As noted above, it is unclear from the record whether any of Appellant’s 

various probationary terms — and, in particular, those imposed at Dockets 

90-2006, and 771-772-20068 — expired prior to December of 2020, when he 

committed the charged violations. Thus, we are compelled to vacate the 

judgments of sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for further 

clarification. If the court determines that Appellant was still serving all of his 

probationary sentences at the time he committed the violations, it shall reimpose the same sentence. However, if the court determines that any of 

Appellant’s probationary sentences expired before he committed the charged 

violations, then it has no authority to either revoke Appellant’s probation at 

those counts, or impose a new sentence. In that case, the trial court shall

resentence Appellant accordingly. Under either scenario, after resentencing, 

Appellant shall be afforded the opportunity, should he so choose, to file a new 

post-sentence motion followed by a direct appeal.

Judgments of sentence vacated. Case remanded for proceedings 

consistent with this Memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

8 As noted supra, it appears from the record before us that Appellant would 

have completed serving his five-year probationary term at Docket 90-2006 in 

2016, and his one-year terms at Dockets 771-771-2006 in 2017.
J-S14025-22

- 12 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/29/2022