Commonwealth v. James

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a PCRA petitioner was ineligible for relief when the petitioner’s sentence and probationary period expired and only the order of restitution remained
• noting that “the PCRA does not afford relief to petitioners whose only outstanding sentence is the payment of a fine”
• noting “the PCRA does not afford relief to petitioners whose only outstanding sentence is the payment of a fine”
• “the monitoring of appellant's restitution payments does not make him eligible for relief under the PCRA.”
• under pre-1998 version of section 1106(c)(2)(ii), trial court’s power to enforce restitution order as part of direct sentence limited to maximum period of time to which defendant could have been sentenced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• George v. Beard
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-05-22· cited 30×
• Commonwealth v. Griffiths
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-12-06· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. Karth
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-04-21· cited 14×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Fisher
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-12-09· cited 72×
• Commonwealth v. Mourar
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-01-21· cited 49×
• Commonwealth v. Mourar
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-12-04· cited 25×
• Commonwealth v. Kratzer
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-06-07· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Lenig
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-03-11· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Papariella
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-01-08· cited 3×