116 A.3d 670
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Perzel and nine others were charged in 2009 with abusing public funds, staff, equipment, and facilities for campaign purposes.
- On August 31, 2011, Perzel pled guilty to two counts each of restricted activities—conflict of interest, conspiracy—restricted activities—conflict of interest, and theft by failure to make required disposition of funds.
- On March 21, 2012, Perzel was sentenced to an aggregate term of 2.5 to 5 years, plus $30,000 in fines and $1,000,000 in restitution.
- Perzel did not file a direct appeal following sentencing.
- On March 21, 2013, Perzel timely filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel filed an amended petition; the PCRA court dismissed the petition July 16, 2014; Perzel appealed and filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on September 19, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution to the Commonwealth is proper when the Commonwealth is a victim | Perzel argues the Commonwealth cannot be a restitution victim | Commonwealth contends it can be a victim for restitution | Restitution to the Commonwealth affirmed; Commonwealth can be a victim under §1106 |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise restitution issue at sentencing | Perzel contends trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the restitution issue | Commonwealth contends no merit to ineffectiveness claim | Ineffectiveness claim failed; PCRA court's dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Runion, 662 A.2d 617 (Pa. 1995) (restitution purposes and victim definitions under the statute prior to/post revision)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 981 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009) (broadens the class of entities eligible to receive restitution; Commonwealth can be a victim)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 691 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 2007) (limits on restitution for indirect expenses to victims)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discussion of restitution goals and victim scope)