Commonwealth v. Gentry
101 A.3d 813
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- In 2009 Gentry pled guilty to two possession-with-intent-to-deliver counts and one count of receiving stolen property; court sentenced him to incarceration followed by probation and ordered restitution “in favor of [victim] at $1.00 subject to review and adjustment.”
- The York County Probation Office later recorded a restitution figure of $49,000; the record does not show how Probation computed that amount.
- Probation filed a violation in February 2013 for failure to pay restitution; Gentry admitted the violation and received a new probation term in April 2013.
- Gentry filed a Motion for Restitution to be Discharged on June 11, 2013; the trial court dismissed the motion as untimely on December 17, 2013 but reduced restitution to $42,000 by concession.
- Gentry appealed; the Superior Court held it had jurisdiction because Section 1106 allows a defendant to seek modification of restitution at any time and treated the trial court’s original restitution order as illegal for delegating the amount to Probation.
- Remedy: the Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing limited to restitution; it declined to discharge Gentry from restitution and required the trial court to set restitution consistent with 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly delegated restitution determination to Probation | Trial court illegally delegated the duty to set restitution by adopting a $1 placeholder and leaving amount to Probation | Trial court says delegation was part of plea agreement; also that it could amend restitution later under §1106(c)(3) | Held: delegation illegal; court must specify restitution at sentencing and cannot delegate to Probation |
| Whether restitution hearing/evidence at sentencing was required | Gentry: Commonwealth presented no restitution evidence at sentencing; restitution was never legally set on the record | Commonwealth conceded sentence illegal but argued remedy should be remand for proper sentencing | Held: lack of submissions or on-the-record determination rendered the order illegal; court agrees with Commonwealth on remedy (remand) |
| Timeliness / jurisdiction to consider restitution challenge | Gentry: his §1106 motion to modify restitution is not time-barred because §1106 permits modification at any time | Trial court initially treated motion as untimely motion to modify sentence and asserted lack of jurisdiction | Held: §1106 creates independent cause to modify restitution at any time; appeal timely and court has jurisdiction |
| Appropriate remedy for illegal restitution order | Gentry sought discharge of restitution or, alternatively, a remand for hearing | Commonwealth sought remand for resentencing to set restitution properly | Held: Remand for a new sentencing hearing on restitution is the proper remedy; discharge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may not delegate restitution amount to an agency)
- Commonwealth v. Mariani, 869 A.2d 484 (Pa. Super. 2005) (order postponing determination of restitution is invalid; remedy is resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2009) (restitution satisfies §1106 when court specifies amount based on information presented at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (§1106 permits defendant to seek modification or amendment of restitution at any time)
- Commonwealth v. Mitsdarfer, 837 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§1106(c)(3) allows court to alter restitution upon recommendation but does not permit initial delegation)