Commonwealth v. Rotola
173 A.3d 831
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Victim reported burglary and loss of jewelry valued at $15,000–$20,000 from her home in Monroe County.
- Police traced sales of the victim’s jewelry to a local pawn shop and identified transactions involving Thomas Pollard, Catherine McDonnell, Rebecca Heddy, and John Rotola.
- Rotola admitted driving his brother to the pawn shop, later finding jewelry in his truck, and arranging for others to sell some items; he called detectives and gave statements implicating participation in selling stolen items.
- Rotola pleaded guilty (open plea) to theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake and was sentenced to 9–24 months’ imprisonment and restitution initially set at $25,934.44, later modified to $25,000 jointly and severally with a co-defendant.
- On appeal Rotola argued restitution was unsupported by the record and not commensurate with his role; the Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded, concluding the plea record did not show Rotola was informed restitution would be imposed or that the amount was established at the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution amount was supported by the record | Rotola: restitution unsupported; no nexus between his conduct and total loss; he only sold some items | Commonwealth: restitution mandatory under §1106 because Rotola’s sales caused property to be unlawfully obtained; joint and several restitution appropriate | Vacated and remanded: restitution portion unsupported on the record and plea did not show defendant was informed restitution would be imposed |
| Whether the plea was voluntary as to restitution | Rotola: plea not knowing as restitution was not mentioned in written plea or on the record | Commonwealth: (implicit) restitution could be imposed post-plea based on evidence and co-defendant proceedings | Court: plea integrity undermined because mandatory restitution under §1106 was not disclosed at plea, so acceptance was questionable |
| Whether court followed §1106 procedures for restitution | Rotola: Commonwealth failed to recommend or present evidence of amount at or before sentencing | Commonwealth: (implicit) trial court had factual basis via investigations and post-plea hearing | Court: §1106(c) requires amount/method specified at sentencing and DA recommendation or victim information; record lacked these prerequisites |
| Whether defendant’s relative culpability limits restitution | Rotola: argued lesser role means he should not bear full restitution | Commonwealth: joint criminal conduct can support joint and several restitution | Court: acknowledged joint criminality but still required adversarial determination of restitution amount; remanded for proper proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Balisteri, 478 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 1984) (restitution must not be speculative or excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 543 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no causal connection between defendant’s role and total victim loss requires vacatur of restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (restitution legality is reviewable as a question of law; due process required in determining full restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. 2006) (restitution lawful where defendant was informed at plea and amount was established on the record, including co-defendant evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Kroh, 654 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Super. 1995) (plea agreements are contractual; terms must be proven by objective, surrounding circumstances)