239 A.3d 25
Pa.2020Background
- Christopher Weir struck Jacob Korimko’s motorcycle; victim testified he paid $1,492 for parts and had an estimate of $2,492 including $1,000 to paint replacement parts.
- After a non‑jury trial, Weir was convicted of criminal mischief and harassment and sentenced to two years and ninety days’ probation and $2,000 restitution (court split the paint cost).
- Weir filed a post‑sentence motion contending the restitution exceeded the loss; the trial court denied relief.
- On appeal the Superior Court held Weir waived his restitution challenge because it implicated the discretionary aspects of sentencing and he failed to include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; a concurring judge argued the challenge implicated sentence legality.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a challenge to the amount of restitution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 implicates sentencing discretion (preservation required) or sentence legality (non‑waivable), and affirmed the Superior Court: amount challenges are discretionary and must be preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Weir (Appellant) | Commonwealth (Appellee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge that the amount of restitution is "speculative" or "unsupported by the record" implicates sentence legality (non‑waivable) or discretionary aspects of sentencing (waivable). | The challenge attacks the sufficiency of evidence supporting the amount and thus the court’s authority under §1106 — a legality issue. | The challenge attacks the trial court’s weighing of evidence and the amount awarded, i.e., exercise of discretion; therefore it is waivable if not preserved. | Amount‑of‑restitution challenges implicate sentencing discretion under §1106(c)(2) and must be preserved (Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)). |
| Whether §1106’s mandate of "full restitution" converts disputes over the quantum/evidence for an award into non‑waivable legality claims. | §1106 requires "full restitution," so any award beyond the supported amount renders the sentence illegal. | §1106’s mandate concerns that restitution must be ordered; it does not dictate the precise evidentiary standard for quantifying the award — the amount remains for the sentencing court’s discretion. | §1106 makes restitution mandatory when its prerequisites are met, but the amount is to be determined by the sentencing court using discretionary factors; the statute does not convert amount disputes into per se legality claims. |
| Effect of failing to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) in appellate brief when contesting restitution amount. | N/A (Weir argued substance). | The Commonwealth asserted the omission waives the discretionary‑sentencing claim. | Failure to include a 2119(f) statement waives a discretionary challenge to the amount of restitution when the opposing party objects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (articulated framework when a sentencing court’s authority is affected and when a sentence is "illegal" for preservation purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (adopted Foster plurality rule regarding when sentences are "illegal" for preservation)
- In the Interest of M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999) (distinguished challenges to sentencing authority to order restitution from challenges to the amount; used as the seminal restitution framework)
- Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (established Rule 2119(f) requirement for appellate briefs raising discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2014) (confirmed that legality claims are reviewable as of right and that a finding of legality can revive otherwise unpreserved claims)