Commonwealth v. Ramos
197 A.3d 766
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Appellant Shana Ramos was charged with criminal mischief for damaging two vehicles after repeatedly knocking on the victim’s door following a recent breakup with the victim’s son.
- On October 17, 2017, Ramos entered a nolo contendere plea; the court imposed a $50 fine, costs, and ordered restitution to be determined later at a separate hearing.
- A restitution hearing was held March 27, 2018, and the court ordered $800 in restitution; Ramos appealed and timely filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- Ramos argued the delayed restitution order was illegal, that the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to prove $800 was owed, and that the restitution amount was speculative.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the initial open-ended restitution sentence (amount to be determined later) was lawful under 18 Pa.C.S. §1106(c) and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of deferred/open restitution order | Commonwealth asserts restitution may be set after sentencing if later supported and modifiable | Ramos argues sentencing court illegally imposed open-ended restitution to be determined later | Court held initial sentencing ordering restitution to be determined later was illegal and vacated sentence |
| Timing requirement for setting restitution amount | Commonwealth relies on ability to modify restitution under §1106(c)(3) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 704 concerns | Ramos contends §1106(c)(2) requires amount/method at time of sentencing | Court held §1106(c)(2) mandates specifying amount and method at sentencing; later modification only applies to a prior specific order |
| Sufficiency of evidence for $800 restitution | Commonwealth would need to present victim’s loss evidence at sentencing or recommendation beforehand | Ramos argued amount was speculative and unsupported | Court did not decide on sufficiency because vacating illegal sentence rendered the issue moot |
| Remedy | Commonwealth likely sought affirmation of restitution | Ramos sought vacatur of restitution order | Court vacated both the October 17, 2017 sentencing order and the March 27, 2018 restitution order and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mariani, 869 A.2d 484 (Pa. Super. 2005) (a restitution order postponing amount to be determined later is ipso facto illegal)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 956 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2008) (§1106(c) requires restitution amount and method be set at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Dinoia, 801 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court must determine restitution at sentencing; modification later only applies to a prior specific order)
- Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 2009) (recognizes court may modify a specific restitution order later, accounting for Rule 704 timing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Pombo, 26 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Super. 2011) (if no statutory authorization exists for a sentence element, the sentence is illegal and must be vacated)