he was entitled to a Gagnon II -
hearing; and (iii) his probation at Docket No. CR-1459-1994 had expired the
week before the VOP hearing. At the hearing, the court revoked Appellant's
probation at Docket No. CR-1459-1994, and resentenced him to three (3) to
twelve (12) months' incarceration.
Appellant timely filed pro se post -sentence motions on October 11,
2018, and October 12, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the revocation court
denied the post -sentence motions. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal
on October 22, 2018. The court ordered Appellant on October 24, 2018, to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on November 1, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
(1) WHETHER THE COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT REVOKED [APPELLANT'S] PROBATION AND RESENTENCED HIM AFTER HIS PROBATIONARY TERM HAD EXPIRED ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED A NEW OFFENSE WHERE HE DID NOT VIOLATE ANY SPECIFIC CONDITION OF HIS PROBATION PURSUANT TO 42 [PA.C.S.A.] § 9754(C) OR 37
1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). J -S20035-19
[PA. CODE] § 65.4 GOVERNING SPECIAL PROBATION, NOR DID HE VIOLATE THE PUBLIC LAW?
(2) WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS [RIGHTS] W[ERE] VIOLATED/SATISFIED WHERE HE NEVER RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTICE OR ANY NOTICE OF ANY SORT BY HIS PROBATION OFFICER OR ANYONE FROM THE [PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE ("PBPP")] OF AN ALLEGATION AGAINST HIM NOR WHAT CONDITION OF PROBATION HE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED, NOR DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM PRIOR TO HIS PROBATIONARY TERM EXPIRING OR AFTER IT EXPIRED[?]
(3) WHETHER [APPELLANT]'S DUE PROCESS [RIGHTS] [W]ERE VIOLATED/SATISFIED WHERE HE WAS NOT AFFORDED A GAGNON I PRELIMINARY HEARING TO DETERMINE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED TO BELIEVE THAT [APPELLANT] VIOLATED HIS PROBATION TO DETAIN [APPELLANT] NOR DID HE WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO THAT HEARING PRIOR TO HIS PROBATIONARY TERM EXPIRING OR AFTER IT EXPIRED?
(4) WHETHER THE COURT THAT REVOKED [APPELLANT]'S PROBATION HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE [APPELLANT]'S PROBATION WHERE IT WAS NOT THE TRIAL COURT THAT PLACED [APPELLANT] ON PROBATION[?][2]
(5) WHETHER [APPELLANT]'S PROBATION COULD BE REVOKED WHERE [APPELLANT]'S PROBATION OFFICER NOR ANYONE FROM THE PBPP ALLEGED AN[] ALLEGATION AGAINST [APPELLANT] NOR DID THE COMMONWEALTH PETITION TO HAVE HIS PROBATION REVOKED?
2 Appellant cites no relevant law to support his argument that the revocation court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation and resentence him, because the jurist was not the same jurist who had originally sentenced Appellant. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 604 Pa. 176, 191, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (2009), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 906, 131 S.Ct. 250, 178 L.Ed.2d 165 (2010) (providing claim is waived where appellate brief does not include citation to relevant authority or fails to develop issue in any meaningful fashion capable of review). Therefore, Appellant's fourth issue is waived, and we will give it no further attention.
J -S20035-19
(Appellant's Brief at 8, 11, 13, 15, 16).3
In