Commonwealth v. Lauer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Lauer

402 A.2d 678, 265 Pa. Super. 542, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2126

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 20, 1979

Docket673

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 402 A.2d 678 (Commonwealth v. Lauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Lauer, 402 A.2d 678, 265 Pa. Super. 542, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2126 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On October 22,1975, the court below imposed judgment of sentence upon appellant which included an order of restitution in favor of one Mr. Waskovich. No direct appeal from the judgment of sentence was filed. After his release from prison in April of 1977, appellant petitioned the lower court to reconsider the restitution order of its sentence on the grounds that Mr. Waskovich was not a “victim” of appellant’s crime entitled to recover restitution, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(c). The lower court denied this petition without a hearing.

Where no appeal is taken, a lower court may alter, amend, or modify its own orders within thirty days after its entry. 12 P.S. § 1032. The time for reconsideration here has long since passed. See Commonwealth v. Yoder, 249 Pa.Super. 389, 378 A.2d 350 (1977). This is not a matter of correcting an obvious or patent mistake on the face of the order itself, Commonwealth v. Cole, 437 Pa. 288, 263 A.2d 339 (1970). As the order of restitution was not unlawful per se, any error underlying the order has been waived by *544 failure to take a direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Walls, 248 Pa.Super. 355, 336, 375 A.2d 125, 126 (1977), aff’d, 481 Pa. 1, 3, 391 A.2d 1064, 1065 (1978).

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

On October 22,1975, the court below imposed judgment of sentence upon appellant which included an order of restitution in favor of one Mr. Waskovich. No direct appeal from the judgment of sentence was filed. After his release from prison in April of 1977, appellant petitioned the lower court to reconsider the restitution order of its sentence on the grounds that Mr. Waskovich was not a “victim” of appellant’s crime entitled to recover restitution, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(c). The lower court denied this petition without a hearing.

Where no appeal is taken, a lower court may alter, amend, or modify its own orders within thirty days after its entry. 12 P.S. § 1032. The time for reconsideration here has long since passed. See Commonwealth v. Yoder, 249 Pa.Super. 389, 378 A.2d 350 (1977). This is not a matter of correcting an obvious or patent mistake on the face of the order itself, Commonwealth v. Cole, 437 Pa. 288, 263 A.2d 339 (1970). As the order of restitution was not unlawful per se, any error underlying the order has been waived by *544 failure to take a direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Walls, 248 Pa.Super. 355, 336, 375 A.2d 125, 126 (1977), aff’d, 481 Pa. 1, 3, 391 A.2d 1064, 1065 (1978).

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 A.2d 678, 265 Pa. Super. 542, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lauer-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack