Commonwealth v. Griffiths
15 A.3d 73
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Appellant pled guilty in 1996 to two counts of second-degree burglary and was ordered to pay restitution totaling $69,811.07.
- Sentences: 9–30 months for count one; 4–24 months consecutive for count two; aggregate 13–54 months.
- Appellant paid $30,000 toward restitution by Aug 2006; after that, he paid nothing through 2009.
- Court repeatedly warned of contempt and bench warrant for nonpayment; notices sent 2007–2009.
- December 10, 2009 contempt hearing: Appellant claimed restitution ceased at incarceration end in 2006; court rejected and found contempt, imposing six months’ incarceration, $2,500 lump sum, and $500 monthly payments.
- Appellant appeals, arguing pre-1998 restitution statute limited collection to the maximum sentence; Commonwealth argues statute allowed continuing collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pre-1998 § 1106(c)(2)(ii) bar collection beyond maximum sentence? | Griffiths argues restitution ends with August 2006 release; no authority to collect later. | Commonwealth argues continuing authority under prior statute; James supports ongoing enforcement. | Court held continued enforcement under pre-1998 statute; affirmed contempt. |
| Does post-1998 amendment ex post facto concerns apply here? | Argues current law would violate ex post facto. | Argues no need to address due to prior-law disposition; relies on rehabilitation aim. | Declined to address ex post facto issue; decision based on prior statute. |
| Was the contempt order proper given restitution amount and schedule were not fully defined at sentencing? | Claims lack of defined schedule defeats contempt base. | Court properly deferred schedule until release; amount was stated and lump sum accepted. | Court properly enforced restitution and found contempt. |
| Did court have authority to enforce restitution and use contempt power after sentence completion? | Authority ends with sentence completion per Griffiths. | Prior statute allowed ongoing enforcement until maximum term; applicable here. | Yes; authority retained under prior statute; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2003) (civil vs criminal contempt factors; restitution context)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (indirect criminal contempt standards)
- Commonwealth v. Dinoia, 801 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2002) (restitution as a sentence; timing of restitution in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2004) (restitution enforcement standards)
- Commonwealth v. James, 771 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 2001) (continuing jurisdiction to enforce restitution under prior statute)
- Commonwealth v. Luper, 745 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2000) (no authority to hold in contempt after expiration of maximum sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 924 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deferral of payment schedule after incarceration)