Com. v. Madsen, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 1528 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A08027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DANIEL BRYAN MADSEN : : Appellant : No. 1528 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 13, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000820-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2025

Daniel Bryan Madsen appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after the court revoked his probation. Madsen argues the court erred or

abused its discretion in concluding he violated the terms of his probation and

in imposing six to 12 months’ incarceration for a first, technical violation. We

affirm the court’s revocation of Madsen’s probation. We find Madsen’s

challenge to the length of his sentence to be moot.

Madsen, acting pro se, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct 1, graded as

a third-degree misdemeanor, “after he was arrested outside the Lehigh

County Courthouse swinging a large knife and spouting nonsense.” Trial Court

Opinion, filed 7/10/24, at 1 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).

On January 30, 2023, a magisterial district justice in Lehigh County sentenced

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4). J-A08027-25

Madsen to 12 months of probation. The order imposing sentence stated, in

relevant part,

Probation with Non-Restrictive Conditions

Beginning Date: 01/30/2023 through 01/30/2024

Deft is sentenced to 12 months[’] probation. To be supervised by Lehigh County Adult Probation 455 W Hamilton St, Allentown, PA 18101. Must comply with rules, regulations or conditions of the probation dept. Must report to probation on the next business day.

Order Imposing Sentence, 1/30/23, at 1.

At the time Madsen pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the instant

case, he was being detained on a separate case in Northampton County. He

was transported from Northampton County to the district court in Lehigh

County for his guilty plea and sentencing. He was then returned to

Northampton County. He was released from Northampton County in February

2023.

Shortly before his probation was to expire, on January 29, 2024, a

warrant was issued for Madsen’s arrest for a technical violation of his

probation, i.e., “Condition 2 – Whereabouts Unknown.” See Warrant, 1/30/24,

at 1. The warrant was returned a few days later, when Madsen was detained

during a traffic stop.

The court summarized the evidence presented at the ensuing hearing

as follows.

The testimony from [Madsen’s] probation officer, Alberto Aponte, revealed that he began supervising the appellant on October 1, 2023. Another probation officer had previously been

-2- J-A08027-25

supervising [Madsen]. Officer Aponte met with [Madsen] on October 16, 2023. He was to meet with [Madsen] again in December 2023, and provided notice of that meeting both verbally and in writing. [Madsen] did not appear for that meeting, nor did he explain his absence to Officer Aponte. Thereafter, Officer Aponte called [Madsen] multiple times without success, and on the last occasion learned that [Madsen’s] phone was out of service.

[Madsen] never reported again to the Lehigh County Probation Department. He was also on supervision in Northampton County for the assault on his brother. His Northampton County Probation Officer, Abigal MacLean, testified that [Madsen] was not in compliance with supervision in that county either.

[Madsen], in his testimony at the probation violation hearing, responded that he did not remember the addresses he provided Officer Aponte, nor did he remember if Officer Aponte called him. He testified that he resided on Jackson Street, an address that had never been provided to Officer Aponte.

Trial Ct. Op. at 3 (footnotes with citations to N.T. omitted).

The court determined a preponderance of the evidence established

Madsen had violated the terms of his probation. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion,

the court explains it found Madsen’s testimony not credible. The court also

found Madsen had intentionally violated his probation:

[Madsen’s] failure to report nor reside at the address known to Officer Aponte was not inadvertent, but intentional. He used different addresses for his own purposes. Even the address provided to his Northampton County probation officer was never confirmed because he did not have a key to that address, and when Officer MacLean did a residence check, she received no answer. The violation may have been technical, but [Madsen’s] avoidance of supervision was willful and intentional, justifying the probation revocation.

-3- J-A08027-25

Id. at 6. The court pointed out, “The only way [Madsen] was ever located was

when he was stopped by the state police for Driving Without a License.” Id.

at 5.

The court revoked Madsen’s probation and scheduled a sentencing

hearing. It ordered a presentence investigation report (“PSI report”), which

disclosed Madsen’s prior record. A mental health evaluation ordered by the

court diagnosed Madsen with adjustment disorder. Madsen denied having any

mental health issues. See id. at 2, 4. At the conclusion of the sentencing

hearing the court resentenced Madsen to six to 12 months’ incarceration.

Madsen did not file any post-sentence motions, but filed a timely notice

of appeal. He raises the following issues.

1. Did the Lower Court err in revoking [Madsen’s] probation based upon an allegation that he had committed a technical violation by not reporting to his probation officer where:

(a) The Commonwealth failed to prove at the Gagnon II hearing that [Madsen], who had been sentenced by a Magisterial District Judge[,] had been informed of the requirement that he report to a Lehigh County Probation Officer; and

(b) [Madsen] had previously and throughout his periods of probation imposed by both Lehigh and Northampton Counties been reporting to his assigned probation officer in Northampton County, and he reasonabl[y] believed that supervision had been transferred to that county?

2. Did [Madsen’s] statement at the sentencing hearing that he was going to appeal the sentence and the revocation following the Lower Court’s announcement of the sentence constitute an adequate Motion to Modify Sentence as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. [708(E)]?

-4- J-A08027-25

3. Did the Lower Court abuse its discretion in sentencing [Madsen], who was serving a term of probation for the offense of Disorderly Conduct graded as a Misdemeanor of the First Degree, to undergo imprisonment for the statutory maximum sentence, six (6) to twelve (12) months, for a first technical violation?

Madsen’s Br. at 2-3 (suggested answers omitted).

The trial court has submitted a letter raising whether this appeal is moot

because Madsen’s maximum sentence has expired. See Letter from Trial

Court, dated 2/13/2025. The court states that Madsen was released on

February 5, 2025, having served the maximum 12 months’ incarceration. The

Commonwealth has not argued mootness.

As a rule, this Court will not decide moot questions. “A case is moot

when facts that arise after the initiation of the case leave a litigant without a

stake in the outcome of the matter.” Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d

1240, 1246 (Pa. 2019).

Madsen’s first issue, challenging the propriety of his revocation of his

probation, is not moot. See id. at 1246 (finding issue of probation revocation

not moot because a future sentencing court could later consider the fact of

the revocation); see also Commonwealth v. Coniker, 290 A.3d 725, 733

(Pa.Super. 2023) (finding completion of sentence did not render challenge to

underlying convictions moot, because a person with a criminal conviction may

face collateral consequences aside from sentence). Even though his sentence

has expired, Madsen still has a stake in whether his criminal record should

contain a judgment that he violated the terms of his probation.

-5- J-A08027-25

We reach a different conclusion regarding Madsen’s remaining issues.

In Madsen’s second issue, he argues he preserved his third issue (a

discretionary sentencing claim) by stating orally at the sentencing hearing that

he wished to appeal his sentence. In his third issue, he argues the court

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and failing to consider

the factors mandated by the sentencing code.

Because Madsen has completed the sentence the court imposed

following its revocation of his probation, the question of whether that sentence

was excessive, and the related issue of whether that question was preserved,

are now moot. See Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993, 996 (Pa.Super.

2001) (finding merger challenge to legality of revocation sentence moot where

sentence expired); cf. Commonwealth v. Adams, 504 A.2d 1264, 1271

(Pa.Super. 1986) (en banc) (finding even though one sentence expired,

merger issue not moot because appellant could receive credit on his illegal

sentence to apply to his legal sentence). Even if we were to agree with Madsen

that he preserved his issue and his sentence was excessive, he is no longer

serving any sentence on this case. There is no relief this Court could now grant

on this claim.2

We therefore limit our review to Madsen’s first issue. Madsen argues the

Commonwealth failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he ____________________________________________

2 The question of whether Madsen served an excessive sentence does not satisfy any exception to the mootness doctrine. See Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa.Super. 2009) (stating exceptions to the mootness doctrine).

-6- J-A08027-25

“willfully failed to keep in contact with his Lehigh County Probation Officer.”

Madsen’s Br. at 13. He notes that the order of probation only required him to

report to Lehigh County Adult Probation on the next business day, and then

required him to “comply with [the] rules, regulations or conditions of the

probation dept.” Id. at 15-16 (quoting Order Imposing Sentence). Madsen

asserts that probation officers may not impose conditions other than those the

court orders at sentencing, and his sentencing order does not specify he is to

continue reporting to Lehigh County. Id. at 16, 16 n.2. Madsen highlights that

he was transported to Lehigh County from Northampton County for the

proceedings in the instant case and then returned to Northampton County. He

contends that after he was released by Northampton County, he reasonably

believed his supervision had been transferred there, and did not have to report

to both places. Id. at 18-19.

Madsen further asserts the evidence does not establish he absconded

because he kept in touch with the Northampton County probation department.

He argues Officer Aponte testified he did not check for Madsen at the

addresses on file with either probation department. Id. at 17-18. He also

argues that Officer Aponte testified that Madsen told him he had been living

out of his minivan, and argues that his transience should not be grounds for

a violation of probation. Id. at 20.

“Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court, and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on

-7- J-A08027-25

appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Parson, 259 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2021).

Section 9754(b) states that the court shall attach the conditions of

probation to the order of probation, as authorized under section 9763. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9754(b). Section 9763 lists 15 conditions the court may impose,

including, “To report as directed to the court or the designated person and to

permit the designated person to visit the defendant’s home.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9763(b)(12). Probation officers may impose additional, more specific

conditions of supervision, so long as they are “germane to, elaborate on, or

interpret any conditions of probation that are imposed by the trial court,” and

do not exceed the relevant statutory authority. Commonwealth v. Shires,

240 A.3d 974, 977-78 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

The court may only revoke probation upon a preponderance of evidence

that the defendant violated a condition of probation or supervision. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b); Shires, 240 A.3d at 978 (discussing Commonwealth

v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012)). In reviewing whether the evidence

met this standard, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the

Commonwealth’s favor. Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280, 1285

(Pa.Super. 2012).

The court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in

determining a preponderance of the evidence established that Madsen violated

a condition of his probation. The court was authorized to impose as a condition

of probation that Madsen report as directed to a designated person, and

-8- J-A08027-25

Madsen’s order of probation clearly stated that he was to be supervised by

Lehigh County Adult Probation. It notified Madsen that he was to report on the

first business day and listed the address where he was to report. It also

instructed Madsen to comply with any rules, regulations or conditions imposed

by Lehigh County Adult Probation. Thus, reporting as directed to Lehigh

County Adult Probation was properly a condition of Madsen’s probation duly

imposed by the court, and Lehigh County Adult Probation could impose any

conditions on Madsen’s supervision that were germane to Madsen’s obligation

to report there. See Shires, 240 A.3d at 977-78.

Officer Aponte testified that he began supervising Madsen in October

2023, and that Madsen had already been reporting to Lehigh County

“sporadic[ally]” before that. N.T., Gagnon II Hearing, 4/1/24, at 5-6. Officer

Aponte met with Madsen in the Lehigh County Office of Adult Probation on

October 16, 2023. Id. at 8. On that day, he gave Madsen written and verbal

notice of his duty to report again on December 12, 2023. Id. at 6-7. Madsen

did not report as directed. Id. at 7. This testimony establishes that Madsen

understood, at the very least, that he was to report to Lehigh County Adult

Probation on December 12, 2023, as a condition of his probation/supervision,

and failed to do so.

Other evidence confirms that Madsen’s failure to report to Lehigh County

Adult Probation was intentional. MacLean testified that Madsen reported to her

several times after he last reported to Lehigh County. Id. at 14-16. When she

met with Madsen on December 19, 2023, after he missed his December 12

-9- J-A08027-25

meeting with Officer Aponte, she discussed the missed report date with

Madsen and advised him to contact Lehigh County. Id. at 16-17. Madsen did

not do so.

In addition, Officer Aponte testified that the day after the arrest warrant

was issued, on January 30, 2024, Madsen contacted Northampton County

Adult Probation, which contacted Officer Aponte. Id. at 10-11. Officer Aponte

asked Northampton County to ask Madsen to report to Lehigh County. Id. at

11. Madsen did not do so. Instead, Madsen was found on February 5, 2024,

during a traffic stop. Id.

Thus, the evidence does not support Madsen’s argument that he was

unaware that reporting to Lehigh County Adult Probation was a condition of

his probation. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that

Madsen understood that requirement and intentionally disregarded it. We

therefore affirm the court’s revocation of Madsen’s probation. As Madsen has

completed serving his sentence, mooting his other issues, we affirm the

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 7/29/2025

- 10 -