Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2/1/1980

Commonwealth v. Schwartz

Citations

418 A.2d 637
275 Pa. Super. 112
1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2003

How courts have described this case

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

resentencing required where judge relied on ex parte information that was not disclosed to the defendant, depriving him the chance to dispute it
reversing a fine due to the fact that it was based upon ex parte hearsay information provided to the sentencing court by police officers, who told the court that the defendant was known to frequently sell high volumes of drugs
sentence vacated because trial court did not have information to determine the defendant's ability to pay
sentence vacated because trial court did not have information to determine the defendant’s ability to pay
\[A]ny 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.\
“The prophylactic measure of pre-sentence report disclosure would be seriously compromised if the sentencing judge was permitted to surreptitiously gather information outside the report without affording the defendant the opportunity to verify its accuracy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price, Spaeth, Lipez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.