Com. v. Mistkowski, A.
Com. v. Mistkowski, A. No. 1667 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- On October 6, 2014, Anthony Mistkowski pled guilty to felony receiving stolen property; plea included five years’ probation and payment of costs; plea did not address restitution.
- At sentencing counsel (for defense and Commonwealth) incorrectly advised the court the recovered motorcycle obviated restitution; the motorcycle had in fact been destroyed.
- On December 11, 2014, the Commonwealth moved to modify sentence to add $18,000 restitution; the court granted the motion the same day and entered a restitution order.
- Mistkowski filed a counseled motion on April 18, 2016 seeking vacatur of the December 11, 2014 restitution order as beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The trial court denied relief on September 6, 2016.
- On appeal the Superior Court agreed the December 11, 2014 restitution order was jurisdictionally improper but raised sua sponte that Mistkowski’s motion was a post‑conviction collateral challenge governed by the PCRA’s timeliness rules.
- Because the motion was filed more than one year after the judgment of sentence became final and no PCRA timeliness exception was pled, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of relief on timeliness/PCRA grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of restitution order added Dec. 11, 2014 | Commonwealth: court may correct sentence and add restitution after sentencing because parties mistakenly informed court property was recovered | Mistkowski: restitution addition violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 721(b)(1); court lacked jurisdiction to add restitution after sentencing without proper recommendation/timely motion | Superior Court: restitution order was jurisdictionally infirm (court and Commonwealth agreed), but review governed by PCRA timeliness rules |
| Whether original sentence (no restitution) should be reinstated vs. remanded for resentencing | Mistkowski: reinstate original lawful sentence without restitution | Commonwealth: vacate and remand for resentencing because original sentencing was based on a factual mistake | Court did not decide on reinstatement v. remand on merits because petition was time‑barred under the PCRA |
| Procedural posture: characterization of April 18, 2016 motion | Mistkowski: styled as motion to vacate illegal order | Commonwealth: treated as collateral challenge | Superior Court: must be construed as a PCRA petition because it was filed after judgment became final |
| Timeliness and jurisdiction under PCRA | Mistkowski: legality-of-sentence claim may be raised anytime | Commonwealth: PCRA time limits apply to collateral challenges | Superior Court: PCRA one-year time bar applies; petition untimely and no exception invoked; court affirmed denial on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012) (courts may sua sponte consider timeliness of collateral petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366 (Pa. Super. 2000) (judgment of sentence becomes final thirty days after imposition when no direct appeal is filed)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (motions filed after judgment becomes final must be treated as PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 803 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA is sole means for collateral review after judgment is final)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are cognizable under PCRA but must satisfy its time limits)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (first‑time PCRA petitioners have a rule‑based right to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. White, 871 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 2005) (counsel requirement during PCRA proceedings)