Commonwealth v. Biauce, 162 A.3d 1133

In 1984 Appellant Donald Biauce shot at Ralph Porch’s car; Porch was injured and later convicted Biauce was sentenced in 1985 to prison and ordered to pay $9,975.68 restitution (plus future medical expenses) to Porch.
In 2016 the county probation office received notice that Porch’s estate and a trust had been established; the Commonwealth petitioned to change the restitution payee from Ralph Porch to the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch, Trustee Francis Porch.
The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s petition on June 10, 2016, changing only the payee (not the amount); Appellant filed a pro se appeal challenging the modification.
Appellant argued: the victim’s estate is not a proper payee under the restitution statute, the modification after 30+ years violated due process and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction, the court failed to credit prior payments, and the Commonwealth committed fraud by including Jean Porch.
The trial court and Superior Court analyzed statutory restitution provisions, the court’s authority to amend restitution orders, and precedents holding estates stand in the victim’s shoes for restitution purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Biauce)	Held
Whether a victim’s estate may be the payee of mandatory restitution	Estate stands in victim’s shoes; restitution may be paid to estate	Estate (and inclusion of Jean Porch) is not a "victim" and thus not a proper payee	Court held the estate may receive restitution; estate is the victim’s successor for restitution purposes
Whether the court may modify the restitution payee decades after sentencing	§1106(c)(3) permits alteration at any time if court states reasons on record	Modification after 30 years exceeded jurisdiction and violated due process	Court held statute authorizes modification at any time if reasons are placed on record; no due process violation shown
Whether a hearing or direct victim submission was required to modify payee	Statute allows DA to recommend changes based on information from victim or others; hearing not required	Change required direct input from the victim and a hearing	Court held statute does not require the victim personally to supply information nor a hearing for this type of amendment
Whether prior payments must be credited or the amount adjusted	Payments to the estate and prior payments to the victim will be credited toward total restitution	Court should have recalculated to reflect Act 84 payments since 2000	Court stated all prior payments are credited; it did not alter the restitution amount beyond changing payee

Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) (statutory construction of restitution and court’s authority to modify orders)
Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2009) (trial court may modify restitution at any time if it states reasons on the record)
Commonwealth v. Lebarre, 961 A.2d 176 (Pa. Super. 2008) (personal representative/estate stands in victim’s shoes for entitlement to benefits)
Commonwealth v. Solomon, 25 A.3d 380 (Pa. Super. 2011) (purpose of restitution is to repair victim’s loss and rehabilitate offender)