Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 9/29/1995

Commonwealth v. Walker

Citations

666 A.2d 301
446 Pa. Super. 43
1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3169

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a substantial question is raised when an appellant argues that sentence of restitution is not supported by the record
holding that challenge to the appropriateness of restitution is a legality of sentencing claim whereas challenge based on excessiveness is a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim
holding that but for Appellant’s DUI, victims would not have sustained injuries and thus restitution for car damage was proper
concluding that substantial question is raised when appellant argues that sentence of restitution is not supported by record
holding that but for Appellant’s DUI, victims would not have sustained injuries and thus restitution for car damage was proper
holding that the appellant raised an illegal sentence claim where he argued that 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(a) did not apply, and that restitution was unauthorized, because there was no causal link between his criminal conviction and the victims’ injuries

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sole, Elliott, Brosky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 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.