Commonwealth v. Cochran II, S., Aplt., 244 A.3d 413

Defendant Steven W. Cochran damaged his grandparents’ vacation home and property during an intoxicated altercation; charged and pleaded guilty to several counts.
At plea/sentencing on June 29, 2017 counsel and the prosecutor stated restitution exceeded $65,000 and defense requested a separate restitution hearing to resolve disputed ownership/amount; the court set a restitution hearing for August 28, 2017.
The court imposed the incarceration portion of the sentence (3 to 23 months, credit for time served) on June 29 but left restitution to be determined at the later hearing; the restitution hearing concluded September 15, 2017 and the court ordered $70,951.59 restitution.
The Superior Court vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding Section 1106(c)(2) requires specifying restitution "at the time of sentencing" and that the trial court’s later order was illegal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Superior Court precedent has eroded the statutory timing requirement and whether vacating the whole sentence was proper.
The Supreme Court concluded the trial court conducted a bifurcated sentencing (June 29 + September 15), so the final sentencing (including restitution) occurred September 15, 2017; therefore the Superior Court erred and its order vacating the sentence was reversed and the sentencing and restitution orders were reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 Pa.C.S. §1106(c)(2) requires the court to specify restitution amount "at the time of sentencing," making any later restitution order illegal	Cochran: statute is unambiguous; failing to set restitution at sentencing renders later restitution orders illegal and strips jurisdiction	Commonwealth: sentencing may be conducted over multiple days; here sentencing was bifurcated and final when restitution was fixed, so statute was satisfied	Court held sentencing was bifurcated; final sentencing (including restitution) occurred Sept. 15, 2017, so §1106(c)(2) was satisfied and Cochran’s jurisdictional challenge failed
Remedy when restitution is improperly left open at sentencing — vacate only restitution or the entire sentence?	Cochran: only the illegal restitution order should be vacated; the rest of the sentence should remain intact	Commonwealth: if restitution omission or late setting upsets the sentencing scheme, vacatur of entire sentence and resentencing may be appropriate	Court reversed Superior Court’s vacatur here because sentencing was not final on June 29; it left open the possibility remand/resentencing is appropriate in other facts where the sentencing scheme is upset, but not on these facts

Commonwealth v. Dinoia, 801 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2002) (held sentencing court may not leave restitution amount open for later determination)
Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2004) (vacated entire sentence where late-set restitution likely integral to probationary sentence)
Commonwealth v. Mariani, 869 A.2d 484 (Pa. Super. 2005) (vacated whole order where sentencing indicated restitution would be determined later)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2003) (read §1106(c)(2) and (c)(4) together; Commonwealth must recommend restitution at or prior to sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (appellate courts may remand for resentencing if appellate disposition upsets the trial court’s sentencing scheme)
Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1133 (Pa.) (reinstated an original restitution order entered at sentencing and vacated an unauthorized post-sentencing modification)
Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) (vacated sentence and remanded where a probationary condition lacked record support)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 753 A.2d 807 (Pa. 2000) (interpreted identical "at the time of sentencing" language in another statute as unambiguous)