Commonwealth v. Elliott
17 A.3d 331, 609 Pa. 499
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 19, 2011
DocketNos. 375 and 376 WAL 2010
StatusPublished
This text of 17 A.3d 331 (Commonwealth v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 17 A.3d 331, 609 Pa. 499 (Pa. 2011).
Opinion
[500]*500 ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Whether the Superior Court’s reliance on 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754 in its holding in Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super.2006) and Commonwealth v. MacGregor, 912 A.2d 315 (Pa.Super.2006) that only the court, and not probation officers, can impose the terms of probation is in conflict with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9798.3, enacted in 2007, which directs that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and County probation authorities in Megan’s Law may impose supervision conditions that include offender tracking.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Commonwealth v. Vilsaint
893 A.2d 753 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Commonwealth v. MacGregor
912 A.2d 315 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
17 A.3d 331, 609 Pa. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-elliott-pa-2011.