J-A10025-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARL JAMES MATHEWS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1356 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 23, 2021,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-CR-0000093-2021.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JULY 11, 2022

Carl James Mathews appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following revocation of his probation. Upon review, we affirm.

On January 13, 2021, Mathews was arrested for DUI and related 

offenses. Subsequently, Mathews pled guilty to DUI-Schedule I controlled 

substance;

1 all other charges were nolle prossed. On April 22, 2021, pursuant 

to his agreement with the Commonwealth, the trial court sentenced Mathews

to 6 months’ restrictive probation, with the first 90 days to be served in the 

Franklin County Jail, and the remainder served as standard probation. His 

sentence took effect that same day.2

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).

2 Mathews received credit for time served from January 14, 2021, to the date 

of sentence.
J-A10025-22

- 2 -

On June 4, 2021, the probation department served Mathews with a 

notice of probation violation indicating that he failed to report to the probation

department as instructed. At the violation hearing on September 23, 2021, 

the trial court found that Mathews violated his probation for failure to report, 

revoked his probation, and sentenced him to 3 to 6 months’ incarceration. 

Matthews filed this timely appeal. Matthews and the court complied with 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

On appeal, Matthews raises a single issue for our consideration:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion [pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Koger, 255 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2021), 

appeal granted, 2022 WL 1014268 (Pa. April 5, 2022)] when it 

found [Mathews] in violation of his probation based solely upon 

his failure to report [to the probation department] as instructed, 

when reporting to the probation department was not made a 

condition of his sentence at the time of initial sentencing.

See Matthews’ Brief at 6. 

When considering an appeal from a sentence imposed following the 

revocation of probation, “[o]ur review is limited to determining the validity of 

the probation revocation proceedings and the authority of the sentencing court 

to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the 

initial sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553, 557 (Pa. 

Super. 2007), appeal denied, 945 A.2d 169 (2008) (citation omitted); 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b). “Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and that court's decision 
J-A10025-22

- 3 -

will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse 

of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 669 A.2d 1008, 1011 (Pa. 1996). 

In the exercise of that discretion, technical violations such as failure to 

report or not living at a given address are alone sufficient to support the parole

revocation. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 534 A.2d 120, 121 (Pa. Super. 

1987), appeal denied, 542 A.2d 1368 (Pa. 1988). However, in order for a 

defendant to be found in violation of the conditions of parole, the court is 

required to attach conditions to a defendant’s parole and inform him or her of

those conditions. Koger, 255 A.3d at 1291. Failure to do so is a violation of 

the court’s statutory mandate. Id. at 1290. As such, this responsibility cannot 

be delegated to a county probation and parole department. Where a trial 

court does not impose, at the time of sentencing, any specific probation or 

parole conditions, the court cannot find that a defendant violated a specific 

condition of probation or parole included in the sentencing order. Id. at 1291.

Mathews claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that 

he violated his probation sentence on the basis that he failed to report to the 

Franklin County probation department when required. Specifically, he argues 

that this was error because the trial court never informed him that he was 

required to report as a condition of his probation at the time of sentencing. 

Consequently, Mathews maintains that, under Koger, the court could not find 

that he violated his probation and revoke it. 

Upon review of the record, we conclude that, contrary to Mathews’ 

claim, the court did not err in finding that Mathews violated his probation and 
J-A10025-22

- 4 -

in revoking it. The trial court imposed certain conditions of probation with 

which Mathews was required to comply and informed him of these 

requirements by way of its sentencing order. 

First, in its April 22, 2021 sentencing order, the court specified that after 

his incarceration, Mathews was to serve the remainder of his sentence “on 

standard probation supervision.” For this, it imposed the Act 35 supervision 

fee. Additionally, the “Special Conditions of Sentence” required Mathews to 

participate in “[a]ny program prison/probation officials deem necessary.” 

Furthermore, the court prohibited Mathews from using or possession alcohol 

or controlled substances and was to be tested. 

Based on its order, it is evident that the trial court directed the Franklin 

County probation department to supervise Mathews. To carry out that 

supervision and the court’s directives, the probation staff required Mathews to 

report to the probation department. We have held that “conditions of 

supervision that are germane to, elaborate on or interpret any conditions of 

probation [or parole] that are imposed by the trial court[]” are permissible. 

Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012). 

Here, an officer of the department informed Matthews that he was 

required to report and when. Additionally, Mathews was provided with, and 

signed a copy of the standard terms and conditions for probation which 

included reporting. N.T., 11/2/21, at 5-6. Although this was done by the 

probation department staff and not the trial court itself, it is permissible under 

Elliott, as it is in furtherance of the court’s conditions. The trial court astutely 
J-A10025-22

- 5 -

noted, and we agree, “[w]e are unsure how [Mathews] could have been 

effectively supervised during his term of probation if he was not required to 

regularly check in with his supervising officer.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/16/21, 

at 16.

Thus, contrary to Mathews’ claim, we conclude that the court did not 

abuse its discretion when it found Mathews in violation of his probation after 

Mathews failed to report to the probations department as directed. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/11/2022