Court Opinion

ID: 9747086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:56:20.401392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:19.949888
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I wish to note a procedural point about this case that might otherwise be overlooked.
If appellant had been sentenced to one to seven years in prison, after having been sentenced to one to five, his right not to be subjected to double jeopardy would have been violated. Commonwealth v. Silverman, 442 Pa. 211, 275 A. 2d 308 (1971). The present case is different because appellant was not sentenced to one to seven years in prison but was placed on seven years probation. This difference is immaterial: “While an order placing a defendant on probation ... is not a judgment of sentence [footnote omitted] as that term is construed for the purposes of procedure, it does . . . constitute punishment for the purposes of determining the question of double jeopardy.” Commonwealth v. Vivian, 426 Pa. 192, 200, 231 A. 2d 301, 305 (1967).
An order placing a defendant on probation is despite its interlocutory nature appealable in cases presenting exceptional circumstances. Commonwealth v. Washington, 428 Pa. 131, 236 A. 2d 772 (1968) ; Commonwealth v. Elias, 394 Pa. 639, 149 A. 2d 53 (1959). Just as a defendant may appeal a probation order if he claims trial error, Commonwealth ex rel. Paige v. Smith, 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 536, 543, 198 A. 812 (1938), so may he appeal if he claims double jeopardy error, at least so it seems to me, from which it follows that if appellant had appealed the order placing him on seven years probation the order would have been vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
*152Appellant did not, however, have to appeal the probation order. As in other cases where an appeal from an interlocutory order is allowed, he conld defer appeal until final judgment (the sentence). Commonwealth v. Elias, supra, at 642,149 A. 2d at 55. That is what he did, and I agree that on his appeal the sentence should be vacated for the reasons set forth in Judge Hoffman’s opinion.