Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 4, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003250-2012, CP-51-CR-0005660-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
Appellant, Phillip Taylor, appeals from the judgment of sentence, imposed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following revocation of his probation. We affirm.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Ia. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION WHERE THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT, NOT THE TRIAL COURT, UNREASONABLY MADE THE VIEWING OF LEGAL PORNOGRAPHY AND THE CLOSING OF HIS FACEBOOK ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS OF PROBATION AND NEITHER CONDITION WAS REASONABLY RELATED TO HIS OFFENSE [OR] CONVICTION OR A PROBATION GOAL?
Ib. DID THE COURT ERR IN REVOKING APPELLANT'S PROBATION FOR NOT CLOSING OUT HIS FACEBOOK ACCOUNT WHERE HE WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO DO SO?
Ic. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION FOR ALLEGEDLY MAKING AN INNOCENT NEW CONTACT ON [HIS] FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IN VIOLATION OF HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION WHERE HE DID NOT USE HIS FACEBOOK ACCOUNT TO COMMIT ANY CRIMINAL OR VIOLATIVE ACTS?
II. WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF PROBATION FOR MERELY FAILING TO CLOSE THE FACEBOOK ACCOUNT AND VIEWING LEGAL PORNOGRAPHY?
(Appellant's Brief at 11).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Nina Wright Padilla, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 5, 2013, at 6-11) (finding (1) conditions of Appellant's probation were tailored to facilitate recovery and rehabilitation as well as to provide for public safety by preventing Appellant from accessing pornographic materials or being in presence of victims on social media; Appellant was aware of requirement to delete Facebook account but he remained active on Facebook; Appellant did not enjoy "full panoply of constitutional rights" while on probation; to some extent, probation order will always restrict personal freedoms; Appellant's probation conditions were not unduly restrictive; sex offenders are subject to intensive supervision; court ordered Appellant to comply with all probation conditions; (2) Appellant had opportunity to close Facebook account but remained active on it, even though he was aware that he was required to delete account; Appellant's conduct indicated probation was ineffective in ...