Com. v. Ruth, E.
641 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Eric S. Ruth pled guilty in 2011 to conflict of interest and conspiracy charges arising from theft-related allegations; sentenced in 2012 to 60 months probation, $7,500 in fines, costs, and $50,000 restitution. No direct appeal was filed.
- Appellant filed his first PCRA petition on January 19, 2017, nearly five years after his judgment of sentence became final.
- He relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Veon (2016) to argue his restitution order was illegal and that his petition fell within the PCRA time exceptions.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the petition as untimely on March 15, 2017, and Appellant’s probation expired March 21, 2017.
- Appellant appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was timely (jurisdictional) and whether any statutory or equitable avenue permitted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ruth) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely because filed within 60 days of Veon decision that rendered restitution illegal | Petition is facially untimely (filed ~5 years after final judgment) and no valid time‑bar exception shown | Dismissed as untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to hear merits |
| Applicability of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) (new constitutional right) | Veon created a right that applies retroactively to invalidate restitution | Veon did not announce a new constitutional right; subsection (b)(1)(iii) thus inapplicable | Exception not met; petition remains untimely |
| Ability to correct illegal sentence outside PCRA (Holmes/equitable power) | Superior Court may vacate illegal restitution sua sponte under Holmes or inherent equity | Holmes does not provide an alternate collateral relief route that circumvents PCRA jurisdictional requirements | Holmes cannot be used to avoid PCRA timeliness rules |
| Relief under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(3) (modification of restitution) | Court can alter restitution at any time; Veon warrants modification | Section 1106(c)(3) requires motion to trial court first; Appellant did not seek modification there | Cannot raise §1106(c)(3) for first time on appeal; remedy unavailable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Veon, 150 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2016) (addressed whether a Commonwealth agency may qualify as a victim for restitution purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (very limited ability to correct patent sentencing errors outside PCRA or § 5505)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Holmes does not create an alternate collateral relief mechanism circumventing PCRA jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§ 1106(c)(3) creates an independent cause of action to seek restitution modification from the trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Mitsdarfer, 837 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Superior Court will not modify restitution where defendant failed to present § 1106(c)(3) request to trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (illegal‑sentence claims still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA relief requires petitioner to be currently serving a sentence)