Pipes v. Malone

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the remedy as “remandfing] for resentencing rather than vacating the restitution order as Appellant insists is appropriate[ ]”
• explaining judgment of sentence including open restitution \to be determined at later date\ is ipso facto illegal
• stating that because the sentence in that case “was an integrated one intended from the outset to consist of both confinement and monetary elements, and because both were not imposed contemporaneously, the illegality of one part invalidates the whole.”
• stating that because the sentence in that case “was an integrated one intended from the outset to consist of both confinement and monetary elements, and because both were not imposed contemporaneously, the illegality of one part invalidates the whole.”
• stating that because the sentence in that case “was an integrated one intended from the outset to consist of both confinement and monetary elements, and because both were not imposed contemporaneously, the illegality of one part invalidates the whole.”
• reiterating where judgment of sentence includes open restitution “to be determined later,” judgment of sentence is ipso facto illegal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).