sentenced Mr. Veon to twelve to forty-eight months’ incarceration, to run concurrently with counts 1, 3, and 5. See Sentencing Order, 6/28/2012. The trial court further directed that Mr. Veon’s sentences for supervision would run consecutively to the sentence imposed upon Mr. Veon for his earlier conviction at 4656 CR 2008, see supra n.5. 16 .The Superior Court, observing correctly that restitution is a sentence, and thus determining that the court’s second order merely modified the existing judgment of sentence, quashed Mr. Veon’s second appeal, viewing the first appeal of his judgment of sentence as the appropriate vehicle to challenge all aspects of his judgment of sentence. See Veon, 109 A.3d at 762-63; see generally Commonwealth v. Harner, 533 Pa. 14, 617 A.2d 702, 704 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Despite the fact that the Superior Court
holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding civil restitution judgment that was originally imposed as part of a criminal sentence nondisehargeable holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment recognizing section 1106 restitution as a direct sentence