Com. v. Saltzer, S.
96 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- On April 10, 2014, Saltzer’s car was observed swerving, striking two parked vehicles, and stopping; witnesses and the officer noted rear-end damage and a bumper hanging off. Saltzer appeared disoriented and was transported to the hospital; blood tests showed lorazepam and clonazepam above prescription levels.
- Police received a hit-and-run report on York Street three minutes before the Beech/Penn Street crash describing a gray/silver Nissan with the same license plate as Saltzer’s vehicle. No other property damage in that area was reported.
- PECO later reported a damaged utility pole at 264 N. York St.; its troubleman inspected the pole and PECO calculated repair costs of $19,463.70.
- Saltzer entered an open guilty plea to DUI (controlled substance) and several summary traffic offenses on July 8, 2015; sentencing was deferred for restitution determination.
- After a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered Saltzer to pay $19,463.70 to PECO as restitution conditioned on intermediate punishment. Saltzer appealed, arguing insufficient nexus between her conduct and the pole damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Saltzer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by ordering restitution to PECO for pole damage | Restitution was proper because circumstantial evidence (hit‑and‑run report matching Saltzer’s vehicle, rear damage, no other reported property damage) ties Saltzer’s overall conduct to the pole damage; restitution can be a condition of intermediate punishment. | Trial court lacked legal basis: Saltzer was never charged/pleaded guilty to hitting the pole and there was no direct proof of contact; restitution requires a nexus and the award is speculative/excessive. | Affirmed. As a condition of intermediate punishment under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9763(b)(10), a relaxed (indirect) nexus sufficed; record supported restitution to PECO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harriott, 919 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restitution as condition of intermediate punishment requires only an indirect nexus to the offense)
- Commonwealth v. Oree, 911 A.2d 169 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishing legality vs. discretionary aspects of restitution challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restitution’s primary purpose is rehabilitation; supports intermediate‑punishment restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (a restitution order unsupported by the record raises legality of sentence)