Com. v. Thomas, L., II
2025 Pa. Super. 133
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2025Background
- Lowell Kenneth Thomas, II, pled nolo contendere to corrupt organizations, home improvement fraud, and theft, receiving an aggregate sentence of twenty years probation plus restitution.
- The court later amended the restitution order to $814,370.94.
- After violating probation by missing restitution payments and a new criminal charge, Thomas was resentenced to a term of imprisonment plus continued probation and restitution.
- Thomas filed a motion (treated as a PCRA petition) claiming his sentence was illegal because the court did not consider his ability to pay restitution as allegedly required by law at the time.
- The motion was filed after the PCRA’s one-year time limit and was dismissed as untimely; Thomas appealed pro se, focusing on whether the trial court had jurisdiction to correct the restitution order under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 at any time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in treating Thomas’s motion to set aside his illegal sentence as an untimely PCRA petition | Thomas: §1106 allows restitution to be amended at any time, so PCRA time bar does not apply | Commonwealth: Motion challenges sentence legality, so it’s a PCRA claim and subject to time bar | Court agrees it should not have been treated as a PCRA claim, but finds no merit to underlying request |
| Whether restitution order required consideration of ability to pay under § 9754 | Thomas: Sentencing court failed to consider financial capacity as required by § 9754, making the order illegal | Commonwealth: Restitution was part of sentence under § 1106, which does not require consideration of ability to pay | Held that § 1106 governs and mandates full restitution regardless of ability to pay |
| Whether the claim is cognizable as a modification motion under § 1106 | Thomas: §1106 permits modification of restitution at any time, regardless of PCRA | Commonwealth: Substance of the claim attacks sentence legality, so PCRA process applies | Court agrees §1106 allows at-any-time motion, but Thomas’s underlying claim fails under §1106 |
| Whether trial court should have disturbed the restitution component of sentence based on Thomas’s motion | Thomas: Court should reduce/modify restitution due to inability to pay | Commonwealth: No legal basis for reduction; statute requires full compensation | Request for modification denied as no basis under § 1106 |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Min, 320 A.3d 727 (Pa. Super. 2024) (standard for PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Hagan, 306 A.3d 414 (Pa. Super. 2023) (treatment of post-sentence petitions as PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Snook, 230 A.3d 438 (Pa. Super. 2020) (court interprets pleadings by substance, not label)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) (distinction between restitution as sentence and as probation condition)
- Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027 (Pa. Super. 2019) (legality of sentence review under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (motions to modify restitution under § 1106 are not subject to usual timeliness requirements)