Commonwealth v. Penrod

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling defendant's claim that \the amount of restitution ordered was improper\ presented a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence
• ruling defendant’s claim that “the amount of restitution ordered was improper” presented a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence
• concluding allegation that sentencing court considered facts not of record raises a substantial question
• finding that prompt or recent recidivism is an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing, because it gives “rise to an inference of intransigence rather than mere relapse following sincere attempts to reform”
• finding that prompt or recent recidivism is an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing, because it gives “rise to an inference of intransigence rather than mere relapse following sincere attempts to reform.”
• finding restitution proper because but for defendant causing car accident, victim would not have lost property contained in demolished car

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).