Com. v. Poplawski, G. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S05009-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GEORGE POPLAWSKI, Appellant No. 289 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 9, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002941-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and PLATT,* JJ. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2016 I join the learned Majority’s memorandum decision in this matter. However, I write separately to note that, after the instant judgment of sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing, the Commonwealth is permitted to reintroduce evidence regarding the amount of mandatory restitution and the trial court may reimpose an appropriate amount of restitution. Commonwealth v. Smith, 956 A.2d 1029, 1034 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). See also Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712, 716 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that appellate court’s determination that restitution order was illegal ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. altered trial court’s J-S05009-16 sentencing scheme and the proper remedy was to vacate entire judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing). P.J.E. Bender and Judge Platt join this Concurring Statement. -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.