Commonwealth v. Burwell
58 A.3d 790
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Burwell was convicted of aggravated assault for striking the victim with an electric guitar, causing a broken wrist, cracked eye socket, and numbness on the left side for two months.
- He received a high-end standard-range sentence of 120–240 months’ imprisonment, with costs and $2,800 restitution for lost wages and other restitution obligations.
- This Court previously remanded for a proper Rule 1925(a) opinion and consideration of non-frivolous issues, including legality of restitution and jury instruction remarks.
- The trial court imposed $2,800 in lost-wages restitution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, asserting it directly resulted from the defendant’s crime.
- The issue of restitution was reviewed as a legal question de novo; the court concluded the lost wages restitution was permissible under § 1106.
- The court also considered whether the trial judge’s jury-instruction remark about serious bodily injury was reversible error, finding waiver due to no objection, and ultimately harmless given the evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the restitution order was illegal under § 1106 | Burwell argues restitution for lost wages was illegal. | Burwell argues the court lacked authority to order lost wages restitution; the state contends § 1106 authorizes it. | Restitution was legal under statute. |
| Whether the loss-wages restitution amount is properly supported by the record | Burwell challenges the amount as not properly calculated. | The Commonwealth contends the record supported a $1,400/month wage loss calculation. | Record supports the $2,800 lost-wages restitution. |
| Whether the trial court's jury-instruction remark about serious bodily injury was reversible error | Burwell contends the remark was error affecting the trial. | The Commonwealth argues any error was waived for lack of objection and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Waived and, if considered, harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2007) (restitution legality and calculation framework)
- Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super. 2006) (illegality of sentence not waivable)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 956 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) (statutory construction review de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 699 A.2d 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997) (restitution for lost wages; dual purpose of restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Valent, 463 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Super. 1983) (record must support restitution amount)
- Commonwealth v. Ryder, 467 Pa. 484 (1976) (harmless error standard in trial remarks)
- Commonwealth v. Meadows, 567 Pa. 344 (2001) (trial court may summarize evidence and express opinion if reasonably based)
- Commonwealth v. Leonhard, 336 Pa. Super. 90 (1984) (judge may express observations on evidence within limits)
- Commonwealth v. Mourar, 504 A.2d 197 (Pa. Super. 1986) (restitution considerations and record support)