Commonwealth v. Schwartz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, Judge:
We agree with Part I of the dissenting opinion, which holds that any ex parte information received by a judge before sentencing should be disclosed to a defendant so that he may have an opportunity to examine it and dispute its accuracy. We do not agree, however, with Part II of the dissenting opinion. In our opinion the sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing, for two reasons: 1) it reasonably appears from the record that the sentencing judge relied on the ex parte information; and 2) the judge imposed a $10,000 fine without determining whether…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BetheaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth ex rel. Benedict v. CliffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. ShaefferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
3Cited by40 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BroadieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. DudenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- George v. BeardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. BerriganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. MeadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.