Com. v. Childress, C., 571 MDA 2016

Clinton Michael Childress pled guilty in July 2012 to DUI and Recklessly Endangering Another Person; sentenced September 12, 2012 with restitution of $6,507.59 on the REAP count.
Childress’s aggregate sentence maximum expired March 12, 2014; by April 10, 2014 he had paid $12,222.87 in fines, fees, and restitution (including the $6,507.59 restitution).
On January 20, 2016 the Commonwealth moved under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(3) to amend the restitution order after the Victim’s Compensation Assistance Program requested an additional $5,467.88 on January 5, 2016.
The trial court denied the Commonwealth’s motion, reasoning it lacked jurisdiction because Childress had completed his sentence and satisfied restitution; the Commonwealth appealed.
The Superior Court considered (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to amend restitution and (2) whether denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion in light of due process and finality concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had jurisdiction to amend a restitution order after defendant completed sentence and paid restitution	Commonwealth: §1106(c)(3) permits courts to alter restitution "at any time," so court retained jurisdiction to amend	Childress: Trial court argued it lacked jurisdiction because sentence had expired and restitution had been satisfied	Court: Jurisdiction exists under §1106(c)(3); trial court erred to the extent it denied motion for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying amendment after considering record, due process, and finality	Commonwealth: Restitution is mandatory; victim compensation payments must be reimbursed to the victim, so amendment should be entered even after sentence expiration	Childress: Late amendment after many years would violate due process and finality; unfair to impose new obligation after sentence completion and restitution payment	Court: No abuse of discretion—denial affirmed based on delay, finality, fairness, due process concerns

Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2009) (§1106(c)(3) gives courts broad authority to modify restitution "at any time" if reasons are stated on the record)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) (full restitution must be determined with due process; finality limits late amendments)
Commonwealth v. Wozniakowski, 860 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2004) (recognizes need for finality and due process where injuries manifest later)
Commonwealth v. Poland, 26 A.3d 518 (Pa. Super. 2011) (review limited to errors of law when evaluating restitution statute application)