The defendant appealed following revocation of parole for his conviction of two crimes. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the Commonwealth did not establish the specific conditions of his parole and probation. The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and vacated. The Court cited 42 Pa.C.S. ยง 9754(b) and held that because the VOP court did not advise the defendant of the conditions of his probation and parole at the time of the initial sentencing, the court could not have found he violated those conditions.
