Commonwealth v. Stradley
50 A.3d 769
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to DUI (Tier III, second offense) after a two-vehicle accident on August 23, 2009.
- On February 16, 2010, Appellant was sentenced to 120 days to 18 months’ imprisonment, $1,500 fine, and $7,900 restitution for property damage.
- In 2011 Appellant moved to vacate the restitution order, attaching a letter and documents from Allstate showing payment to the victim.
- The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely; Appellant timely appealed to challenge the restitution order’s legality.
- Statutory framework 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 requires restitution to the insurer for amounts paid to the victim, not to the victim directly.
- The court vacated the sentence to the extent it awarded restitution to the victim and remanded for an award payable to Allstate in the amount of $7,900.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to vacate restitution was timely. | Stradley contends the motion is timely under § 1106(c)(3). | Commonwealth argues untimeliness under existing procedural rules. | Motion timely; trial court erred in deeming it time-barred. |
| Whether restitution must be paid to the insurer rather than the victim when insurer paid the loss. | Allstate is not a victim; payments should reduce or negate restitution to the victim. | Restitution must be to the victim; insurer payments do not reduce the award. | Restitution must be paid to Allstate for amounts it paid; victim not entitled to double recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812 (Pa.Super.2003) (waiver of defenses in plea context; legality of sentence remains reviewable)
- Commonwealth v. Mitsdarfer, 837 A.2d 1203 (Pa.Super.2003) (restitution can be modified/altered under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 at any time)
- Commonwealth v. Redman, 864 A.2d 566 (Pa.Super.2004) (illegality vs. discretionary aspects of restitution appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 986 A.2d 159 (Pa.Super.2009) (legal standard for appellate review of legal sentence questions)
- Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Super.2010) (restitution legality review preserved after plea)
- Commonwealth v. Randal, 887 A.2d 1211 (Pa.Super.2003) (sua sponte review for illegality of sentence)