Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Dinola

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 19, 2002PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtKlein, J.

¶ 1 We are presented with the question of whether, in sentences imposed after the 1998 amendments to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106, the sentencing court is required to specify the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing. In this case, the sentencing court left the amount of restitution open. Apparently this is a common practice in Bucks County. A hearing at which the amount of restitution was set was not held until eighteen months after sentencing. Whether or not it is a common practice, we conclude that after the 1998 amendments, this practice is improper and a sentencing court may not leave…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ramich v. Worker's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Commonwealth v. FuquaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Commonwealth v. ErbSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Commonwealth v. RohrerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Commonwealth v. KisnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Com. v. DinoiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API