Com. v. Messick, W.
2075 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In 2011 William L. Messick pled guilty to theft by failing to make required disposition of funds after converting a $250,000 investor "loan." He received a negotiated sentence imposing five years probation and $250,000 restitution.
- The plea and sentencing colloquy described restitution in the context of the five-year probationary term and the parties agreed restitution would be paid during that probation.
- Messick repeatedly fell behind on payments; the court adjusted payment plans and held Gagnon proceedings when nonpayment occurred.
- In November 2016 Messick stipulated to a probation violation based on failure to pay restitution by his supervision maximum date; the court revoked and then resentenced him to another five years of probation with continued restitution as an agreed special condition.
- Messick filed a motion (treated as a timely PCRA petition) challenging the legality of the resentencing, arguing the court lacked authority to impose another five-year probation term or treat restitution as a probation condition after the original supervision maximum expired.
- The Superior Court held the trial court erred in imposing an additional five-year probation term because restitution was part of Messick’s direct sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, but affirmed that the court retains authority to enforce the outstanding restitution until paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Messick) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution was imposed as a direct sentence or as a condition of probation | Sentencing ambiguity should be resolved for defendant; restitution functioned as a probation condition and could not extend beyond supervision maximum | Court says restitution was penal/compensatory—part of direct sentence under §1106 | Court held restitution was part of the direct sentence under §1106, not merely a probation condition |
| Whether trial court could resentence Messick to a new 5-year probation term after supervision maximum expired | No authority to impose additional 5-year probation based on alleged probation violation tied to restitution that was part of the direct sentence | Trial court treated violation as probation breach warranting revocation and new probation term | Court held resentencing to another five years of probation was illegal and reversed that portion of the PCRA denial |
| Whether the court may continue to enforce restitution after the probation/sentence period expired | Resentence was unlawful; continuation of enforcement impermissible as extension of criminal penalty | Restitution as direct sentence is enforceable until paid; court retains contempt and enforcement powers post-sentence | Court held the trial court properly may continue to enforce restitution (as a direct sentence) until paid and may use contempt powers to do so |
| Whether defendant’s stipulation to the violation cures an illegal sentence | Stipulation cannot validate an illegal sentence imposed without authority | Commonwealth argued stipulation and plea agreement supported the order | Court reiterated that a defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, but the stipulation did not save the illegal five-year resentence; enforcement of restitution remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffiths, 15 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may enforce restitution ordered as a direct sentence until paid and use contempt to compel payment)
- Commonwealth v. Harriott, 919 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restitution proper only if a direct causal connection exists between crime and loss)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 155 A.3d 69 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discusses restitution as sentence vs. probation condition and relevant sentencing principles)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 722 A.2d 157 (Pa. Super. 1998) (victim’s loss is a direct result of the offense when it flows from the conduct forming the basis of the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Wood, 446 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 1982) (restitution impresses upon offender responsibility to repair loss)
- Commonwealth v. Walton, 397 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1979) (support for court’s latitude in ordering restitution)
- Commonwealth v. James, 771 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discusses temporal limits on enforcing restitution under pre-amendment statute)
- Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant’s agreement cannot validate an illegal sentence)