Commonwealth v. Kinnan
71 A.3d 983
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Kinnan pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking and the court imposed restitution as a probation condition.
- Miller Welding reported theft; total value taken was approximately $3,010.41; items were later returned undamaged.
- Police located and recovered all stolen metal from Kinnan’s garage and delivered it back to Miller Welding.
- Kinnan’s defense argued restitution was inappropriate because there was no loss and the property was returned.
- The court relied on 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9754(c)(13) to impose restitution as a probation condition, and did not expressly account for § 9754(c)(8) against lack of loss.
- Kinnan appeals, arguing the restitution order as probation condition was illegal; the Superior Court vacates and remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution can be ordered as a probation condition when the victim suffered no loss | Kinnan | Kinnan | Restitution improper as probation condition; vacate and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (restoration as part of sentence; legality review)
- Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992) (restitution is a creature of statute; authority required)
- Commonwealth v. Keenan, 853 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. 2004) (restitution primarily for rehabilitation and redress)
- Commonwealth v. Popow, 844 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. 2004) (probation restitution can be rehabilitative, not punitive)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 994 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2010) (damages must be proven when restitution is probationary)
- Commonwealth v. Harriott, 919 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super. 2007) (probation restitution requires suitable nexus and purpose)