Com. v. Demby, 2385 EDA 2015

Earl Francis Demby previously received probation/intermediate punishment tied to Veterans Court and was required to use a taxpayer‑owned Soberlink device as a condition of supervision.
He violated supervision, was charged with new retail theft / receiving stolen property offenses, and admitted the violations at a July 9, 2015 termination hearing.
The Soberlink vendor reported the device (valued at $1,200) was not returned; the Commonwealth requested restitution to Delaware County for the device.
The trial court revoked supervision and imposed an aggregate sentence of 2.5 to 5 years’ incarceration and ordered $1,200 restitution to Delaware County; the sentencing sheet also indicated Demby was not RRRI‑eligible.
Post‑sentence, defense sought reconsideration arguing RRRI eligibility and errors in crediting back time; the court attempted to enter an amended sentencing order after a notice of appeal.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the restitution order and the failure to impose an RRRI minimum rendered the sentence illegal and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution to Delaware County for the missing Soberlink device was lawful under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106	Commonwealth: County should be reimbursed for the lost device; alternatively recoverable as costs	Demby: County is not a "victim" under the Crime Victims Act and § 1106 does not authorize restitution here	Restitution under § 1106 was unauthorized because the device loss was not a direct result of the crimes for which Demby was convicted; restitution order was illegal and vacated
Whether court erred by failing to impose an RRRI minimum and declaring Demby ineligible	Commonwealth/Trial Court: Demby was not RRRI eligible (and attempted to condition eligibility on restitution)	Demby: No disqualifying convictions or violent conduct; therefore RRRI minimum required	Court concluded Demby was RRRI eligible; failure to impose an RRRI minimum rendered the sentence illegal and required vacatur
Whether the trial court could amend the sentencing order after notice of appeal	Commonwealth/Trial Court: entered an amended order stating "Not RRRI eligible, Restitution to be paid first" after appeal filing	Demby: trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend after notice of appeal	Superior Court held the post‑appeal amendment was void; trial court lost jurisdiction after notice of appeal and only patent corrections are permitted (not applicable here)

Commonwealth v. Kinnan, 71 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2013) (restitution statute limits and requirement that loss be direct result of the crime)
Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to impose RRRI minimum on eligible offender is legal error and an illegal sentence)
Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review standard for legality of sentence; illegal sentences must be vacated)
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012) (Parole Board, not trial court, is paroling authority for sentences with maximum two years or more and court recommendations are nonbinding)
Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 2001) (trial court may correct patent errors after loss of jurisdiction only in limited circumstances)