Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 4/13/2010

Commonwealth v. Garzone

Citations

  • 993 A.2d 306
  • 2010 Pa. Super. 57
  • 2010 Pa. Super. LEXIS 315
  • 2010 WL 1445193

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that an argument that the trial court did not have the authority to impose certain costs presents a legality of sentence claim whereas a claim that the amount is excessive presents a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim
  • stating that “inasmuch as [a]ppellant’s argument is premised upon a claim that the trial court did not have the authority to impose the costs at issue, [a]ppellant has presented a legality of sentencing claim.”
  • acknowledging costs may be allocated to convicted defendants under 16 P.S. § 1403 where costs were necessary to bring defendant to conviction
  • acknowledging costs may be allocated to convicted defendants under 16 P.S. § 1403 where costs were necessary to bring defendant to conviction
  • “[I]nasmuch as [the defendant’s] argument is premised - 16 - J-E01004-20 upon a claim that the trial court did not have the authority to impose the costs at issue, [the defendant] has presented a legality of sentencing claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Mundy, McEwen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.