Like Justice Nigro, I find further support for this conclusion in the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Shartle, 438 Pa.Super. 403, 652 A.2d 874 (1995). There, the Superior Court found that a defendant was not entitled to credit against her sentence for time spent in a home confinement program from the time of her arrest until her preliminary hearing. The court pointed to the non-custodial nature of a sentence served in one’s home and concluded that it is “not the equivalent of time served in an institutional setting.” Id. at 409, 652 A.2d at 877. Finding the term “custody” in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9760 to be synonymous with the term “imprisonment” in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, the Superior Court applied this Court’s holdings in Commonwealth v. Kriston, 527 Pa. 90, 588 A.2d 898 (1991) (<HOLDING>) and Commonwealth v. Conahan, 527 Pa. 199, 589
holding notice of informal discovery must be served on opposing counsel to constitute a step in the prosecution holding that sentences of imprisonment pursuant to 75 pacs  3731 must be served in institutional settings holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence holding that bivens defendants must be served as individuals pursuant to rule 4e