Commonwealth v. McKee
38 A.3d 879
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- McKee was convicted May 22, 2008 of burglary, criminal conspiracy to commit burglary, and theft by unlawful taking.
- Sentencing on July 25, 2008 imposed six to 23 months imprisonment, one year probation, and an immediate parole placement with intermediate punishment.
- Restitution of $500 plus court costs was ordered at the restitution order.
- McKee timely appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on August 25, 2008.
- Superior Court issued an unpublished memorandum on March 5, 2010 reversing the convictions and judgment of sentence.
- McKee filed a Petition for Return of Restitution and Court Costs/Fees on April 12, 2010; the trial court denied on June 10, 2010; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify or refund restitution after reversal. | McKee asserts restitution was void after reversal and should be refunded. | Commonwealth contends no jurisdiction to alter restitution after sentence reversal. | Dietrich authorizes modification; trial court had jurisdiction to modify restitution. |
| Whether Rule 2591 authorizes refund of court costs/fees on remand. | McKee seeks repayment of costs under Rule 2591. | Commonwealth contends Rule 2591 does not compel refund. | Rule 2591 permits remand to address repayment on remand. |
| Whether Hooper v. Idaho provides controlling guidance on restitution refunds. | Hooper suggests lack of jurisdiction to refund; persuasive guidance. | Hooper not controlling for Pennsylvania restitution refunds. | Hooper not controlling; Pennsylvania authority supports refund potential. |
| What is the proper standard and remedy for legality of restitution after reversal? | Challenge to legality of the restitution order post-reversal. | Restitution remains a component of sentence; needs legal review. | Court may modify/reorder restitution consistent with §1106(c)(3) and remand with record reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (restitution as a sentence; standard of review for legality)
- Commonwealth v. C.L., 963 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 2008) (restitution/record as basis to challenge legality)
- Commonwealth v. Pombo, 26 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Super. 2011) (plenary review on legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Langston, 904 A.2d 917 (Pa. Super. 2006) (return of restitution to fund when not proper victim)
- Commonwealth v. Wozniakowski, 860 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2004) (remedy for illegal open-ended restitution is repayment)
- Dietrich v. Commonwealth, 601 Pa. 58, 970 A.2d 1131 (2009) (restitution order modification at any time with stated reasons)
- Hooper v. Idaho, 150 Idaho 497, 248 P.3d 748 (Idaho 2011) (Idaho court on restitution refund—non-controlling guidance)