Commonwealth v. Russell
Commonwealth v. Russell
Opinion of the Court
Defendant pled guilty to seventeen counts of burglary, twenty-two counts of theft by unlawful taking or disposi
We agree with the second contention. The sentencing judge stated nothing on the record concerning restitution, except the amount that was ordered on each count. There was no consideration on the record of the required factors in determining a restitutionary sentence. See Commonwealth v. Fuqua, 267 Pa.Super.Ct. 504, 510-11, 407 A.2d 24, 27 (1979). Because we cannot determine what influence the restitutionary sentence may have had on the sentence of imprisonment and probation, we vacate the entire sentence and remand for resentencing. Therefore there is no need to consider defendant’s first issue.
Judgment of sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.