Com. v. Lock, J., 233 A.3d 888

On Sept. 3, 2018 Lock's dog left his property and attacked a neighbor's cat; Lock was cited under the Dog Law, 3 P.S. § 459-305(a)(1) (summary offense).
Lock pleaded guilty in magisterial court and was ordered a $300 fine plus $9,331.43 in restitution (veterinary bills); he timely appealed and received a de novo trial.
At the de novo trial Lock admitted the dog attacked the cat but argued the restitution order was illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 because restitution for animals is limited to any decrease in the animal's value, not veterinary costs.
The trial court again ordered $9,331.43 restitution; Lock appealed contending (1) restitution is not available for Dog Law violations and (2) restitution cannot exceed the decrease in the animal's value.
The Superior Court reviewed the legality of the sentence de novo and affirmed: Section 1106 covers offenses punishable by a magisterial district judge and authorizes full restitution, which may include repair/replacement costs such as veterinary bills.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered for injuries to an animal arising from a Dog Law violation	Commonwealth: §1106 applies to offenses punishable by a magisterial district judge, so restitution may be imposed for Dog Law violations	Lock: Dog Law does not prescribe restitution; §1106 therefore should not apply to Dog Law summary offenses	Court: §1106(h) defines "crime" to include offenses punishable by a magisterial district judge; trial court had statutory authority to order restitution for the Dog Law violation
Whether restitution may be measured by veterinary costs rather than only by decrease in the animal's market value	Commonwealth: §1106 mandates "full restitution" and property restitution can include money necessary to repair or replace the property, which here includes vet bills	Lock: §1106 authorizes restitution only to the extent the property's value was decreased; vet bills cannot be the measure if they exceed decrease in value	Court: Under precedent (Genovese) restitution for property damage can be repair/replace costs; vet bills were an appropriate basis for "full restitution" and the $9,331.43 award was lawful

Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992) (restitution is penal and limited to losses for which defendant is criminally accountable)
In re M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999) (when restitution is imposed as a direct sentence, injury must directly result from the crime)
Commonwealth v. Weir, 201 A.3d 163 (Pa. Super. 2018) (restitution required where crime, injury to property/person, and direct causal nexus are proven)
Commonwealth v. Genovese, 675 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 1996) (property restitution may be satisfied by payment of money necessary to repair or replace the damaged property)
Commonwealth v. Oree, 911 A.2d 169 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishes legality of restitution orders from excessiveness challenges)