J-A08005-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THOMAS WOOD : : Appellant : No. 558 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 14, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012382-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Thomas Wood appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following the revocation of his
probation. After review, we affirm.
Wood was arrested on August 14, 2012 after he was observed engaging
in a drug transaction.1 Following a non-jury trial, Wood was found guilty of
possession with intent to deliver (PWID) a controlled substance 2 and one count
of possession of a controlled substance 3 on April 9, 2014. On July 18, 2014,
____________________________________________
1 We have previously summarized the facts leading to Wood’s arrest, which
are not relevant here, in a prior decision. See Commonwealth v. Wood, 193 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Table).
2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
3 Id. at § 780-113(a)(16). J-A08005-25
the trial court sentenced Wood to thirty to sixty months’ imprisonment on the
PWID conviction, followed by a consecutive period of three years’ probation. 4
Wood appealed and, on May 20, 2015, this Court affirmed his judgment of
sentence. See Commonwealth v. Wood, 122 A.3d 453 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(Table).
On August 25, 2015, Wood filed a timely petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Wood’s court-
appointed counsel filed an amended petition on October 20, 2015. The
Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 2016. The trial
court granted the Commonwealth’s motion and dismissed the petition on
March 24, 2017. Wood timely appealed, and this Court affirmed the dismissal
of the PCRA petition. See Wood, 193 A.3d 1067.
On July 14, 2021, Wood appeared for a violation of probation (VOP)
hearing. At this hearing, Wood’s attorney argued that Wood’s probation had
expired prior to the commission of the alleged violations. See N.T. VOP
Hearing, 7/14/21, at 35-40. Wood claimed that, because he had been
incarcerated since August 14, 2012, his arrest date, on the instant charges,
and his sentence was for five years’ imprisonment with three consecutive
years of probation, his probation would have commenced on August 14, 2020.
See id. at 35. However, Assistant District Attorney Don Burns, Jr. Esquire,
4 The conviction for possession of a controlled substance merged with the conviction for possession with intent to distribute for the purposes of sentencing.
-2- J-A08005-25
testified that Wood’s effective probation date was July 12, 2020, and his
probation expiration date was July 13, 2023. See id. at 37. Further, the VOP
court read Wood’s criminal history into the record, which included two
convictions for aggravated harassment by a prisoner, for which Wood received
sentences of six to twelve months incarceration in 2016 and 2017,
respectively. Id. at 40-41.
ADA Burns additionally testified at Wood’s VOP hearing regarding the
alleged technical probation violations Wood committed. Id. at 4-7. Without
presenting witnesses, ADA Burns told the VOP court about Wood failing
multiple drug tests, an issue regarding Wood’s place of residence, and a
discrepancy regarding Wood’s employment status. Id. at 4-5. ADA Burns
also summarized a letter provided by Wood’s girlfriend or ex-girlfriend,
Courtney Little, who stated that Wood was physically abusive towards her,
destroyed property in her home, and stole her jewelry. Id. at 5-6. ADA Burns
further testified that Wood had also violated his probation based upon a video
Wood posted to his social media, wherein he appeared to be holding a firearm.
Id. at 6-7. ADA Burns was unable to present the video at the hearing, but he
provided two screenshots from the video, which were entered into evidence
along with the supervision history and the letter from Little. Id. at 7. Wood’s
counsel did not object at any point throughout the proceeding to the evidence
presented.
At the close of the hearing, the VOP court found Wood to be in technical
violation of his probation and sentenced him to a probation revocation
-3- J-A08005-25
sentence of one-and-a-half to five years’ incarceration. On July 15, 2021,
Wood filed for reconsideration of sentence. Wood filed a supplemental motion
for reconsideration of sentence on September 28, 2021, alleging that the trial
court failed to credit him with time served from the date of his arrest and
incarceration on August 14, 2012, until his sentencing on July 18, 2014. After
a hearing on November 8, 2021, the VOP court denied Wood’s supplemental
motion for reconsideration.
On December 20, 2021, Wood filed a pro se notice of appeal. On July
20, 2023, this Court dismissed Wood’s appeal as untimely. See
Commonwealth v. Wood, 303 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Table). On
November 2, 2023, Wood filed a petition for reinstatement of his appellate
rights nunc pro tunc. The Commonwealth did not oppose this request. On
January 18, 2024, the PCRA court granted Wood’s petition and reinstated his
appellate rights nunc pro tunc.
Wood filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2024, followed by an
amended notice of appeal on February 16, 2024.5 The VOP court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).6 Wood raises the following issues for our review:
(1) Whether the facts presented to the [VOP c]ourt were not probative and not reliable and whether the finding of a violation of probation was not supported by sufficient evidence? Did [the ____________________________________________
5 The amended notice of appeal added that Wood was appealing from the judgment of re-sentence for his violation of probation entered on July 14, 2021, as the initial notice of appeal used the incorrect date.
6 The VOP court did not order Wood to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-4- J-A08005-25
VOP court] abuse [its] discretion by finding a violation of probation and resentencing [Wood] to an additional sentence of incarceration when the evidence was unreliable and hearsay without any confrontation right and did this violate due process under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
A) Did [the VOP court] err and abuse [its] discretion by allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence and did this preclude [Wood from] exercising his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, resulting in very unreliable evidence and [a] violat[ion of] fundamental due process?
B) Did the [VOP c]ourt err by not concluding that [Wood’s] probation sentence had been finished and concluded before the alleged misconduct? Did the [VOP c]ourt err by placing the burden of proof on [Wood] to demonstrate he was no longer on probation when it was the duty of the Commonwealth to demonstrate and not the duty of [Wood]? []
Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5.
“[I]n an appeal from a sentence imposed after the court has revoked
probation, we can review the validity of the revocation proceedings, the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A08005-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THOMAS WOOD : : Appellant : No. 558 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 14, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012382-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Thomas Wood appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following the revocation of his
probation. After review, we affirm.
Wood was arrested on August 14, 2012 after he was observed engaging
in a drug transaction.1 Following a non-jury trial, Wood was found guilty of
possession with intent to deliver (PWID) a controlled substance 2 and one count
of possession of a controlled substance 3 on April 9, 2014. On July 18, 2014,
____________________________________________
1 We have previously summarized the facts leading to Wood’s arrest, which
are not relevant here, in a prior decision. See Commonwealth v. Wood, 193 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Table).
2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
3 Id. at § 780-113(a)(16). J-A08005-25
the trial court sentenced Wood to thirty to sixty months’ imprisonment on the
PWID conviction, followed by a consecutive period of three years’ probation. 4
Wood appealed and, on May 20, 2015, this Court affirmed his judgment of
sentence. See Commonwealth v. Wood, 122 A.3d 453 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(Table).
On August 25, 2015, Wood filed a timely petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Wood’s court-
appointed counsel filed an amended petition on October 20, 2015. The
Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 2016. The trial
court granted the Commonwealth’s motion and dismissed the petition on
March 24, 2017. Wood timely appealed, and this Court affirmed the dismissal
of the PCRA petition. See Wood, 193 A.3d 1067.
On July 14, 2021, Wood appeared for a violation of probation (VOP)
hearing. At this hearing, Wood’s attorney argued that Wood’s probation had
expired prior to the commission of the alleged violations. See N.T. VOP
Hearing, 7/14/21, at 35-40. Wood claimed that, because he had been
incarcerated since August 14, 2012, his arrest date, on the instant charges,
and his sentence was for five years’ imprisonment with three consecutive
years of probation, his probation would have commenced on August 14, 2020.
See id. at 35. However, Assistant District Attorney Don Burns, Jr. Esquire,
4 The conviction for possession of a controlled substance merged with the conviction for possession with intent to distribute for the purposes of sentencing.
-2- J-A08005-25
testified that Wood’s effective probation date was July 12, 2020, and his
probation expiration date was July 13, 2023. See id. at 37. Further, the VOP
court read Wood’s criminal history into the record, which included two
convictions for aggravated harassment by a prisoner, for which Wood received
sentences of six to twelve months incarceration in 2016 and 2017,
respectively. Id. at 40-41.
ADA Burns additionally testified at Wood’s VOP hearing regarding the
alleged technical probation violations Wood committed. Id. at 4-7. Without
presenting witnesses, ADA Burns told the VOP court about Wood failing
multiple drug tests, an issue regarding Wood’s place of residence, and a
discrepancy regarding Wood’s employment status. Id. at 4-5. ADA Burns
also summarized a letter provided by Wood’s girlfriend or ex-girlfriend,
Courtney Little, who stated that Wood was physically abusive towards her,
destroyed property in her home, and stole her jewelry. Id. at 5-6. ADA Burns
further testified that Wood had also violated his probation based upon a video
Wood posted to his social media, wherein he appeared to be holding a firearm.
Id. at 6-7. ADA Burns was unable to present the video at the hearing, but he
provided two screenshots from the video, which were entered into evidence
along with the supervision history and the letter from Little. Id. at 7. Wood’s
counsel did not object at any point throughout the proceeding to the evidence
presented.
At the close of the hearing, the VOP court found Wood to be in technical
violation of his probation and sentenced him to a probation revocation
-3- J-A08005-25
sentence of one-and-a-half to five years’ incarceration. On July 15, 2021,
Wood filed for reconsideration of sentence. Wood filed a supplemental motion
for reconsideration of sentence on September 28, 2021, alleging that the trial
court failed to credit him with time served from the date of his arrest and
incarceration on August 14, 2012, until his sentencing on July 18, 2014. After
a hearing on November 8, 2021, the VOP court denied Wood’s supplemental
motion for reconsideration.
On December 20, 2021, Wood filed a pro se notice of appeal. On July
20, 2023, this Court dismissed Wood’s appeal as untimely. See
Commonwealth v. Wood, 303 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Table). On
November 2, 2023, Wood filed a petition for reinstatement of his appellate
rights nunc pro tunc. The Commonwealth did not oppose this request. On
January 18, 2024, the PCRA court granted Wood’s petition and reinstated his
appellate rights nunc pro tunc.
Wood filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2024, followed by an
amended notice of appeal on February 16, 2024.5 The VOP court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).6 Wood raises the following issues for our review:
(1) Whether the facts presented to the [VOP c]ourt were not probative and not reliable and whether the finding of a violation of probation was not supported by sufficient evidence? Did [the ____________________________________________
5 The amended notice of appeal added that Wood was appealing from the judgment of re-sentence for his violation of probation entered on July 14, 2021, as the initial notice of appeal used the incorrect date.
6 The VOP court did not order Wood to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-4- J-A08005-25
VOP court] abuse [its] discretion by finding a violation of probation and resentencing [Wood] to an additional sentence of incarceration when the evidence was unreliable and hearsay without any confrontation right and did this violate due process under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
A) Did [the VOP court] err and abuse [its] discretion by allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence and did this preclude [Wood from] exercising his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, resulting in very unreliable evidence and [a] violat[ion of] fundamental due process?
B) Did the [VOP c]ourt err by not concluding that [Wood’s] probation sentence had been finished and concluded before the alleged misconduct? Did the [VOP c]ourt err by placing the burden of proof on [Wood] to demonstrate he was no longer on probation when it was the duty of the Commonwealth to demonstrate and not the duty of [Wood]? []
Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5.
“[I]n an appeal from a sentence imposed after the court has revoked
probation, we can review 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.
Shires, 240 A.3d 974, 977 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Wright, 116 A.3d 133, 136 (Pa. Super. 2015)). “[R]evocation 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 appeal in the absence of an error
of law or an abuse of discretion.” Shires, 240 A.3d at 977 (quoting
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2014)).
Wood first claims that the VOP court erred by finding that he had
violated his probation when, according to Wood, he was no longer on
-5- J-A08005-25
probation at the time of the alleged technical violations. See Appellant’s Brief,
at 30-31, 45, 48-50. Wood claims that “the [VOP c]ourt never determined
when [his] probation ended or began[,]” and that “[l]ooking at the record, it
is difficult to determine when the probation expired.” Id. at 49-50. We
disagree.
Sufficient evidence was put forward at the VOP hearing for the court to
conclude that Wood’s probation had not expired at the time of his alleged
violations. At the VOP hearing, the Commonwealth claimed that Wood
violated his probation on October 14, 2020, January 4, 2021, and May 5, 2021.
See N.T. Violation of Probation Hearing, 7/14/21, at 4-5. The VOP court read
Wood’s criminal history into the record, which included two convictions for
aggravated harassment by a prisoner. Id. at 40-41. The two convictions,
which occurred in 2016 and 2017, respectively, carried sentences of six to
twelve months’ incarceration. Id. The Commonwealth stated at the VOP
hearing that Wood had a “parole effective date of 7/12/20, and [a] probation
expiration date of 7/13/23.” Id. at 37. Therefore, because the record
demonstrated that Wood’s probation did not begin until July 12, 2020 because
his period of incarceration was extended by his two convictions for aggravated
harassment by a prisoner, the VOP court did not err in concluding that Wood
was still on probation at the time of the alleged violations. See
Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184, 188 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding
term of probation cannot be served while imprisoned on unrelated sentence).
-6- J-A08005-25
Wood next argues that the Commonwealth did not produce sufficient
evidence to prove a probation violation occurred, as, he alleges, “[n]ot one
witness appeared[,]” “[e]verything was by hearsay[,]” and the VOP court
erred in finding a violation “based solely on hearsay evidence and unreliable
evidence.” Appellant’s Brief, at 29-30. However, Wood has waived this claim
due to his failure to object to the evidence he now claims is hearsay at the
VOP hearing.7 See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the
trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); see
also Commonwealth v. Crabb, 283 A.3d 402, at *6 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(Table) (finding challenge to hearsay evidence in VOP hearing waived for
failure to object); Commonwealth v. Stevens, 292 A.3d 1105, at *2-3 (Pa.
Super. 2023) (Table) (finding challenge to hearsay evidence in VOP hearing
waived for failure to object).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 9/3/2025
7 We note that the VOP court did not make a finding of good cause for not
allowing the confrontation of witnesses, and that “hearsay is not admissible at a [violation of probation] hearing absent a finding of good cause for not allowing confrontation.” Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 969 A.2d 1236, 1241 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-7-