Com. v. Eldred, G., Com. v. Eldred, G. No. 431 WDA 2016

In July 2013 Gregory Eldred pled guilty to first-degree murder for killing his ex-wife and received life without parole; as part of the plea he agreed to pay restitution to allow witnesses to receive counseling.
The sentencing order stated the court “will impose additional restitution of $100 so victims may continue to receive counseling for up to six months, said amount to be amended from time to time as counseling occurs.”
Over two years later the Commonwealth moved to amend restitution to include $1,427.20 for counseling received by a witness, Jane Metzger, who had not previously been reimbursed.
Eldred objected, arguing Metzger was not a “victim” under the restitution statute and that the request was untimely.
The trial court allowed the amendment, ordering payment to the Victim’s Compensation Assistance Program; Eldred appealed.
The Superior Court held the restitution award illegal because the statutory definition of “victim” did not include Metzger, and remanded for a new restitution hearing limited to that issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Eldred)	Held
Whether the court could amend restitution more than two years after sentencing	Amendment allowed by sentencing language and § 1106(c)(3); no time constraint	Motion was untimely and exceeded what was agreed	Amendment timing was permissible; statute allows amendment without time constraint (court may alter restitution and must state reasons)
Whether a witness (Metzger) qualifies as a “victim” eligible for restitution under 18 P.S. § 11.103/18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106	Plea and sentencing referred to witnesses as “victims”; Eldred agreed to restitution for witnesses, so Metzger should receive reimbursement	Statute defines “victim” narrowly (direct victims, certain family members); Metzger was not a direct victim nor a covered family member	Metzger is not a statutorily defined “victim”; restitution to her was illegal despite plea agreement
Whether a defendant can contract (by plea) for restitution that statutory law does not authorize	Agreement on the record binds parties and court	A defendant cannot validly agree to an illegal sentence; statutory authorization is required	A plea cannot validate restitution not authorized by statute; illegal sentence must be vacated

Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenge to restitution as legality-of-sentence issue; illegal restitution must be vacated)
Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2009) (§ 1106(c)(3) permits modification of restitution and requires on-the-record reasons)
Commonwealth v. Solomon, 25 A.3d 380 (Pa. Super. 2011) (restitution is compensation to statutory "victims," not a general third-party reimbursement system)
Commonwealth v. Parsons, 969 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2009) (plea agreements stated on the record bind parties if legally possible to fulfill)
Commonwealth v. Kelley, 136 A.3d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2016) (if no statutory authorization exists for a sentence, it is illegal and subject to correction)
Commonwealth v. Wozniakowski, 860 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2004) (procedural guidance for appeals from post-sentencing orders)