Com. v. Rivera, H. (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A05029-14 2014 PA Super 140 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HECTOR RIVERA, Appellant No. 1919 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered May 9, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000002-2013 BEFORE: ALLEN, JENKINS, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 03, 2014 I concur in result only. In Commonwealth v. Pride, 380 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1977), in order, this Court stated: tion probation on repayment of $500.00. Our Court is bound by terms of the sentence officially appearing on the record. Commonwealth v. Silverman, 442 Pa. 211, 275 A.2d 308 (1971). Accordingly, we may not redefine the reimbursement order as a condition of probation. Pride, 380 A.2d at 1270 (footnote omitted). My review of the record reveals that, like the facts of Pride, the written sentencing order at issue did *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A05029-14 Office was a con Nevertheless, unlike the Majority, I do not read Pride as necessarily condition of a probationary sentence. In Pride, because the sentencing order did not specifically impose the monetary payment as a condition of probation, the majority found the ordered payment was not statutorily authorized. Pride, 380 A.2d at 1270 (holding tha Compare Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) of financial responsibility for the consequences of his criminal conduct may be reasonably related to the rehabilitation that probation is designed to specifically designate the payment -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
