Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1/28/2000

Commonwealth v. Vasquez

Citations

744 A.2d 1280
560 Pa. 381
2000 Pa. LEXIS 206

How courts have described this case

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

finding that application of mandatory provision implicates the legality, not the discretionary, aspects of sentencing
finding that application of mandatory provision implicates the legality, not the discretionary, aspects of sentencing
concluding that the Superior Court did not err in remanding upon a request of the trial court based on the determination that the original sentence was illegal due to the trial court’s omission of a mandatory fine
concluding that the Superior Court did not err in remanding upon a request of the trial court based on the determination that the original sentence was illegal due to the trial court’s omission of a mandatory fine
explaining that the Commonwealth’s “non-compliance with Rule [721] creates no bar” to reviewing the legality of an appellant’s sentence
holding application of mandatory provision implicates legality, not discretionary, aspects of sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 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.