Com. v. Muhammed, Y.
219 A.3d 1207
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- On March 5, 2018, Yahya Asaad Muhammed (represented by counsel) pled guilty to third-degree criminal trespass; the court sentenced him to incarceration and ordered court costs and restitution to be determined later at a restitution hearing.
- A restitution hearing was held March 12, 2018; the trial court ordered Muhammed to pay $8,825.98 in restitution, jointly and severally with co-defendant Lorna Fretwell.
- Muhammed filed post-sentence challenges (including pro se filings) and appealed, arguing the restitution award was speculative, unsupported, and not tied to the trespass conviction.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether deferring the restitution amount at sentencing rendered the sentence illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 and whether restitution for stolen property was permissible given Muhammed’s conviction for trespass (not theft).
- The court vacated the March 5, 2018 sentence as illegal for deferring the amount/method of restitution, vacated the restitution award insofar as it covered stolen property (no theft conviction), upheld restitution for property damage, and remanded for resentencing (declining to resolve discretionary challenges to the amount).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of deferring restitution amount at sentencing | Commonwealth: scheduling a later restitution hearing was permissible | Muhammed: deferring amount/method at sentencing was illegal | Court: Illegal to defer; sentencing order vacated; must specify restitution amount/method at sentencing (Ramos) |
| Restitution for stolen property when defendant pleaded to trespass (not theft) | Commonwealth: restitution for losses could be imposed based on conduct and joint criminal harm | Muhammed: restitution for theft-related losses improper because no conviction for theft | Court: Award for stolen property illegal—no causal/conviction basis; vacated that portion (Poplawski) |
| Restitution for damaged property and joint-and-several liability | Commonwealth: property damage directly resulted from defendants’ conduct; co-defendant pled to criminal mischief | Muhammed: should not be liable for full damage beyond his culpability | Court: Restitution for damage was permissible and joint-and-several liability appropriate (Rotola) |
| Amount excessive/speculative / unsupported by record | Commonwealth: victim testimony and market listings supported award | Muhammed: amount was speculative and unsupported | Court: Treated as discretionary; declined to decide on appeal and left amount for resentencing (preserve and re-raise after remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766 (Pa. Super. 2018) (trial court must specify some restitution amount and method at initial sentencing; deferral renders sentence illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Weir, 201 A.3d 163 (Pa. Super. 2018) (distinguishes legality vs. discretionary challenges to restitution and requires statutory elements for restitution authority)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 158 A.3d 671 (Pa. Super. 2017) (vacating restitution where award was not a direct result of defendant’s criminal conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Rotola, 173 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2017) (permitting restitution for property damage where defendant participated in joint criminal conduct that caused the loss)
- Commonwealth v. Gerulis, 616 A.2d 686 (Pa. 1992) (but-for test to determine damages directly resulting from defendant’s criminal conduct)