the petitioner be in custody "under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). The fact that Lee is attacking his original conviction and sentence but is "in custody” as a result of a probation violation is inconsequential. Under Pennsylvania law, a violation of probation is not considered a separate offense but an element of the original sentence. See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 497 Pa. 437, 441, 441 A.2d 1218, 1220 (1982) ("The imposition of total confinement upon revocation of appellant’s probation was not a second punishment for his robbery conviction, but was an integral element of the original conditional sentence.”); Commonwealth v. Colding, 482 Pa. 112, 393 A.2d 404 (1978) (<HOLDING>); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 9771(b) ("Upon
holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum holding that the revocation of probation and the imposition of a term of total confinement was not violative of the double jeopardy clause since the defendant was given one conditional sentence which merely deferred sentencing the defendant to a fixed term of total confinement until such time as he violated the conditions of his probation holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation holding that under statutes in effect at the time a court may not by revocation and granting a second period of probation extend the total time on probation beyond five years as the statutes do not speak of terms of probation but speak in plain language of the total time which may be spent on probation for a felony recognizing of course the suspension of the imposition of sentence and the grant of probation