*2 SPAETH, Before CAVANAUGH, HESTER and JJ. SPAETH, Judge:
This is an appeal from a judgment sentence for biga- The my.1 $5,000 lower court fined appellant placed him on two years probation on condition that he make restitution to the complainant. issue is the court’s authority require restitution. We hold that the court had such author- but ity was obliged itself to determine the amount of restitution to be paid the manner of payment, instead of 1. 18 Pa.C.S.A. determina- to make a probation department
directing for further and remand tion. therefore reverse We shall proceedings. Erb, a sheetmet- 1968, Frederick C. 16, appellant,
On May On Gutridge Virginia. worker, al married Eloise James married, marry he 4, 1977, purported while June still Welsh, case, in Brook- this complainant Emma Louise in 1979 haven, Pennsylvania. Sometime Delaware County, married, already Ms. appellant Welsh discovered 1979, complaint criminal private and on she filed June him with charging bigamy. this pleaded guilty appellant
On October plea proceeding. at the guilty Ms. Welsh testified charge. Naval told her work in had his She said that sometimes; from home away him to be Intelligence required *3 “secret her he was going that in 1979 he told January separate apartment, rent a duty” and would have to months; disclose, he for three of which could location was going hospitalized later he told her to be sometime ailment, not to visit a heart but Hospital Hahnemann for she the hospital him that when went to hospital; in the 12. his real wife. N.T. at discovered him with she anyway, to had money spent Ms. also testified about she Welsh a (appar- a of document presenting copy support appellant, to the court: itemizing expenses)2 these ently he fact, Incidentally, ERB Ms. .... MRS. Welsh]: [in him, happened time it quite Any was out of work a bit. I had few bills. I I bills. a paid quite worked and his Tell Welsh’s attorney]: MR. BERKOWITZ [Ms. Honor about it. was benefited him directly ERB: The total that
MRS. thousand—$5,309. five of items? type
THE COURT: For what bills, Well, plus ERB: lot of this medical MRS. a clothing He had no clothing. for his cars and payments me to he asked January, whatsoever. And when he left to us. part is not of the record as transmitted This document give $1,500 to set him his own said up apartment and he he just needed scant of bit furniture because it wasn’t $1,500. to be I going long, gave so him a very check THE Is that all set COURT: forth in that document? ERB: Yes. MRS.
THE us, COURT: Would you present that please. N.T. at 13-14.
Appellant’s then attorney questioned appellant briefly about his financial contributions to the household:
MR. If [appellant’s JAMES the Court attorney]: please, I just would have Mr. Erb that during indicate this period of time, would, if you tell us when you were working what if did with anything you your paycheck? Honor,
MR. ERB: from Your of pay period June 1977until the date of pay 19,1979,1 gave Emma January Louise every one with my paychecks the exception one.
MR. How JAMES: much was your weekly bring-home pay?
MR. ERB: This averaged anywhere from $280 $281 depending particular on the tax deductions of that week.
MR. This was done from JAMES: the time were you married until the time you separated?
MR. ERB: From 4th ’77 June until approximately 19, 1979. January
Now, clothing, insofar as repairs my clothing, *4 were majority charged these to Visa and I made out the checks, from monthly joint our dual or check account. Now, Eloise—Emma all Louise—(Laughter)—handled the banking. I gave my her With paycheck. pay- every check she made all and deposits I and frankly honestly don’t even what it was in it know bank or where is I located. it is know located in the area of Haverford Hospital and she would make these deposits way her or from work. have I never been this bank.
THE All COURT: right. Anything further?
MR. your JAMES: Honor. Nothing, N.T. at 16-17. a sen- that would schedule court then stated it
The lower of a report pre-sen- it had received a after tencing hearing N.T. at 17. tencing investigation. 28, 1979. Ap- was on November hearing sentencing
The and background about spoke appellant’s pellant’s attorney objected He then stated that personal history. restitution to Ms. Welsh: order of any feel we have not been As the restitution we goes, far as this, that information to contest supplied with sufficient provided by and all the information all these statements ex- indicate the only Mrs. Welsh her through attorney during Mr. Erb himself that were penses specified 4,1977 Erb time, until Mr. from June period period with fully employed He was January year. left this if we take the And even Company. Vertol Boeing returned to him Mrs. Welsh that she says statements that contest, week, it which we still per approximately $100 week which approximately per still leaves the sum of $150 Erb to Mrs. Welsh. was turned over Mr.
N.T. at 9. continued: attorney speak, If I before the victim does may,
MR. JAMES: whole, all is Honor, the victim that making as far as your Welsh has been to our attention is that Mrs. brought We have asked and have expend caused to certain sums. Welsh of the amounts that Mrs. provided copies been savings prior had in her account and account checking We are the time when Mr. Erb has left. marriage and that just argument assumptions faced with the situation or this woman is in a less financial status or now on June 4th. And I think position than she was a client here who unsubstantiated. And we have in- his contributing weekly the whole time and working expenses running come to the operation, daily should be taken into of a household. And I think that consideration.
N.T. at 11. *5 contributions,
Ms. Welsh testified about her again financial and otherwise:
LOUISE We lived and a half. together year WELSH: I wife, And lived with him that I he thinking was his was my devoted husband. And I cooked for him. I cleaned the house. I did I everything. washed and Now, ironed. And I I think this crime to me is worked.. worse than a murder or a or even mugging a robbery because can you replace material But cannot things. you replace your been, know, affections. And I have you in a state since really thing this has happened. Now, about He money. didn’t work steadily. Whenever he decided he off, wanted to take a all day you have records, to do is his work he subpoena did. And he didn’t get paid when he didn’t work. He depended my salary in. The coming that was that I money spent have here for you look are that went payments directly benefit, his car, on his payments medical expenses, payments on his children for Christmas. These are what these checks entail.
MR. BERKOWITZ: How much is the total checks?
LOUISE I WELSH: have the total.
THE COURT: I think I have it.
MR. BERKOWITZ: She has originals.
LOUISE or WELSH: Whether not I am in a worse financial I him, state than was before I met I think is irrelevant. The point that our money, my money that had, I I used for him when we were married as wife any would. There was no of which question yours mine, which is I except that am telling you what went to him. directly
N.T. at 14-15. Appellant’s attorney renewed his objection to an order of restitution:
MR. I might, Honor, JAMES: If your we do have copies of Mr. wage 1977,1978 Erb’s for the earnings and the year two-week period that resided they together in 1979. The *6 $21,605.00. this That is the total income shown on is figure. net—excuse is the I don’t gross me. That So put in money mean to to the Court that all this imply on an earning the account. But Mr. Erb was after taxes average per basis of week. approximately $250 I I
THE COURT: have Mrs. Welsh’s statement? May know I had I over morning. mine this I know looked it prior to to I don’t have now. coming court. But it Honor, here,
MR. We have it right BERKOWITZ: your the letter and the there original collection of checks. And themselves, letters, are two checks Honor. and the your THE them COURT: Hand all up please. Honor,
MR. GROSS district Your I attorney]: [assistant would also like to add in response attorney’s to defense statement, that I don’t believe of the earnings that defendant are here. victim relevant The issue what the lost, has not what the defendant earned.
THE I COURT: am these checks have admitting that me, been along handed with up the statement.
[*] :{: s|i sjs [*] [*] MR. If I JAMES: the Court would like to pleases, just record, make one further statement for the once again reiterate that the Assistant District has Attorney once stated again that we are not with concerned so much what Mr. Erb earned during marriage as period to what Mrs. Erb or Mrs. Welsh has suffered during this period. We have been supplied by Berkowitz, Mr. and the Court also has copies of which are expenses not—we are contesting expenses which have been forth set However, therein. imperative I think it’s Mrs. upon loss, Welsh to show—if we are that her talking must show financial position situation and prior the time of the as marriage to at opposed the time that the parties separated.
THE COURT: Why?
MR. JAMES: She is a loss. And claiming any allega- tion as to loss, her financial I concerning situation believe should be substantiated in than showing just more form, To take it in an abstract she is expenses. $5,500 in
alleging neighborhood somewhere of about $6,000 But of time expenses. during period they married, joint were the two had a income of over parties $33,000. upon And I think it’s incumbent them to come forward with this information. We have it and requested have not been it to show that she did fact supplied suffer the The shown. allegations losses. loss should be not denied. We are not expenses denying are those shown. And show the expenses they parties are whom the were as Mrs. payments represented made Welsh. But we feel it is incumbent her to show her upon *7 financial to position prior subsequent marriage. and to the N.T. at 16-19.
The replied assistant district to\his attorney argument by that saying case,
it wasn’t the financial loss to the victim in this only and that was at this the victim point only to make way somewhat whole. The she went and the grief through major humiliation she went is the issue. .. . through is part just of the loss here. It’s not this financial [T]hat issue ....
N.T. 19.
The court to these several stat- responded arguments by ing: that me about is it was a thing impresses this
cold-blooded It was a calculated It was let’s thing. thing. just fool this for a while. Then I can person get up walk That’s it. And for me to do but away. anything punish this man at this would be for me to point agree the whole off. And I’m process, laugh going it do it. 19-20.
N.T. After a im- argument little more the court colloquy, posed sentence: of sentence of the Court is that a fine you pay
[T]he $5,000, that be that make you placed probation, you restitution to victim in sum will deter- which be
73 mined I probation probation office. want to go office over these bills first for me to sort somewhat them out. I will make a final determination amount of restitution. The defendant is on two placed years probation under the of the Delaware supervision County Probation It Department. specific made condition of this that the during defendant pay two-year period whatever amount of restitution is determined to be due. I Failing making that will consider a violation of probation, which will leave the defendant open being brought back here and an having appropriate jail sentence entered.
N.T. at 21.
-1- “In Pennsylvania imposed restitution can be either as a condition of probation or as a direct sentence.” Common- wealth 504, 267 Fuqua, 509, 24, Pa.Super. A.2d (1979) (footnote omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Wal- ton, 588, 483 Pa. (1979). sentence, A.2d 1179 As a direct restitution is Code, authorized 1106of by Section the Crimes 18, 1976, 394, 86, Act of June 1, P.L. No. amended, as Act § 28, April 53, 7(5), P.L. No. effective June *8 18 Pa.C.S.A. which provides: § injuries person property Restitution or (a) General rule.—Upon conviction for crime any stolen, wherein property has been or converted otherwise obtained, unlawfully or its value substantially decreased as a direct crime, result of the or wherein the victim suffered personal crime, injury directly resulting from the the offender may be sentenced to make restitution in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor.
(b) probation parole.—Whenever Condition of or resti- tution has been ordered pursuant (a) subsection and the offender has been placed probation or parole, his com- pliance with such may order be made a condition of such probation parole. or
(c) sentencing Authority court.—In determining a of the sentence or as part whether to order restitution as court: a condition of or probation parole, by the extent of suffered (1) injury consider Shall as it deems appropriate. victim and such other matters sum, monthly in a (2) lump by order restitution May it to such other schedule as according installments or which during that the of time just, provided period deems shall not the offender is ordered to make restitution to which the imprisonment exceed the maximum term for the of which offender could have been sentenced crime he was convicted.
(3) time alter or amend order of resti- May any any however, tution made to this section pursuant providing, as a matter that the court state its reasons conclusions change previous of record for or amendment any any order.
$ ¡‡[ 9jc ‡ # % (e) payments records.—Restitution, Restitution made the offender to judge, when ordered shall be by by in which he was probation county section of or, court when convicted to the order according be made to the district justice, ordered a district shall by and the district justice. justice section its shall maintain records of the restitution order and to the victim the property satisfaction and shall forward or made restitution order. payments pursuant $ $ >(C ¤ ¤ ^ (g) private Preservation of remedies.—No judgment or order of debar the owner of the proper- restitution shall or the who sustained ty personal injury, by appro- victim action, to recover from the offender as otherwise priate law, civil award shall be provided by provided any judgment. reduced the amount under the criminal paid (h) following used in this section the Definitions.—As *9 them given words and shall have the to phrases meanings in this subsection: title or by under this Any punishable
“Crime.” offense justice. a district or personal property, Loss of real
“Injury property.” to value, in its instruments, or decrease including negotiable the crime. resulting from directly of guilty has been found who person Any “Offender.” crime. any harm, including preg- injury.” bodily Actual
“Personal crime. from the resulting nancy, directly including property, real or “Property.” personal Any instruments, of the victim. and negotiable currency victim of the property return of the “Restitution.” pursuant thereof equivalent or the or cash payments of the an order court. offender, who suf- an except person,
“Victim.” Any direct result as a property to his or injuries person fered of crime. of the Sen- is also authorized Section
Restitution 1974, 1052, 345, No. 30, P.L. Code, Act December of tencing which provides: Pa.C.S.A. § § Sentencing generally the sentence be
(a) determining General rule.—In mini- mandatory where a shall, imposed except the court law, consider and provided by is mum sentence otherwise alternatives, and may following one or of the select more concurrently: or impose consecutively them of (1) probation. An order penalty. without further guilt
(2) A determination Partial confinement. (3) confinement.
(4) Total A fine.
(5)
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] set (c) alternatives addition Restitution.—In order may of this section court (a) forth in subsection victim his criminal compensate defendant he sustained. or damage injury conduct for the authorized as a condition of restitution Finally, Code, Act December Sentencing 1354of the by Section *10 1974, 1052, 345, P.L. No. Pa.C.S.A. which § § provides:
(a) General Rule—In a sentence imposing of the court shall at the time of the specify sentencing length of term any which the defendant is during supervised, to be which term shall not exceed the maximum for term which confined, the defendant be could and the authority that shall conduct supervision. the (b) Conditions generally—The court shall such attach of the reasonable conditions authorized by (c) subsection of this section as it deems or necessary insure assist the in a leading abiding defendant law life.
(c) Specific conditions.—The court as condition may of its order require defendant: (8) To make restitution of the fruits of his crime or to reparations, make in an he amount can afford to pay, for or loss caused damage thereby. (13) To other satisfy conditions any reasonably related to rehabilitation of defendant and unduly not restric- tive of his or liberty incompatible with his freedom of conscience. argument first in
Appellant’s him, is that sentencing lower court exceeded its This is based authority. argument on the in assumption sentence, imposing the lower court acted under the of authority 18 Pa.C.S.A. 1106. Proceed- ing from this assumption, argues that Section 1106 does not authorize a sentence of restitution conviction upon of bigamy. Appellant relies particularly upon (a) subsection of provides Section which that restitution be may ordered “[u]pon conviction for crime any wherein property stolen, has been converted or otherwise obtained, or lawfully its value decreased as a substantially direct result of the crime, or wherein the victim suffered personal direct- injury ” ly resulting from the crime .. .. its what lower court thought no means clear It is The arguments of order restitution was. authority source above, did counsel, quoted which have been respective of were not couched authority, cite the court to any any any possible way terms related apparently “loss” in several speaking sources instead authority, of reasons does the court’s statement different senses. Nor itself, any authority. cite sentence, its the sentence or *11 the appeal the from response In its filed in opinion, sentence, the states: court case, for Resti- of an Order
Although, on the facts this 1106(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. authorized may by tution not be § authority broader Defendant’s contention overlooks in Pleas of Common which has been the Courts granted Probation. to a Sentence of attaching conditions Slip op. 1354 of
The court then on to cite and Section goes quote which, above, as authorizes a court Sentencing Code, noted probation. to order as a condition of the restitution that record, we have concluded On state of the this not, not, decide whether 18 Pa.C.S.A. we need and so should upon conviction 1106 authorizes a sentence of restitution § of bigamy. any authority of If there was source sentence, sug we source was not affirm—even if the may of or court at the time known lower gested Walton, is supra. Here it Commonwealth sentencing. Code, a that 1354 of the Sentencing clear under Section probation upon a impose court authorized to sentence a restitution condition conviction and make bigamy, reject appellant’s argument We therefore probation. that him, in court exceeded its authori that lower sentencing ty-
-2- is that Appellant’s argument second supported on the the sentence of restitution was specify record in Court failed to the amount the Trial of restitution on the record and to determine that Defendant had means to adequate pay.
Appellant’s Brief at 15. Walton,
In Commonwealth v. our supra, Supreme Court discussed the principles to be in a sen- applied considering tence to probation on condition that the defendant make restitution. In its decision the Court contrasted such a sentence with a sentence that directs restitution addition to statutory punishment—as may be done under 18 Pa.C. S.A. 1106(a). Said Court: is, view, in our distinction between significant [T]here ' restitution required addition to a statutory punishment, as such imprisonment, restitution in lieu of required such punishment. While such an order must be strictly scrutinized in with a conjunction sen- primarily punitive tence, conditions of probation, though significant restric- freedom, tions on the offender’s are aimed at primarily effecting, as a constructive alternative to imprisonment, his rehabilitation and into reintegration as a law- society citizen; abiding courts therefore are traditionally *12 properly invested with a broader measure of discretion in fashioning conditions of appropriate to the cir- cumstances of the Standards, individual case. See ABA Probation, Draft, 3.2 (Approved 1970). Walton, 598,
Commonwealth v. 483 Pa. at supra, 397 A.2d (footnotes at 1184 omitted).
In Commonwealth v. we Fuqua, supra, likewise discussed when restitution was appropriate:
An order of restitution or reparation either as a imposed direct sentence or aas condition of a probation constitutes “constructive in the justice criminal jurisprudence.” tool[] Gerner, v. 579, State 115 Ariz. 566 (1977); P.2d 1057 see Schafer, Restitution to Victims of Crime—An Old Correc- Modernized, tional Aim 50 (1965). Minn.L.Rev. 243 Such sentences are to be encouraged as constitute they “an aid both to the criminal in achieving rehabilitation and his to victim in obtaining some measure of redress.” Common-
79
1179,
588, 599,
A.2d
1185
Walton,
397
483 Pa.
wealth v.
(1976);
32
Harris,
586, 363 A.2d
70 N.J.
see
v.
(1979);
State
which
of Probation
Annotation,
of Condition
Propriety
of Violence
of Crimes
Convicted
Requires Defendant
Victim,
A.L.R.3d 976
79
Injured
Reparation
Make
sentence, imposed
sentence, or a condition
(1977). As a
conviction, an order of restitution
following a criminal
Rothstein, How
generally
not an
See
damages.
award
Works, 60
Act
Reparation
Victims
Uniform Crime
victim,
its
While the order aids
(1974).
ABAJ 1531
is the
for its imposition,
true
and the reason
purpose,
the of-
upon
by “impressing
rehabilitative
it serves
goal
responsibility
and his
fender the loss he has caused
v.
to do so.” State
loss as far as it is
repair
possible
see
829,
Stalheim,
(1976);
552 P.2d
832
275 Or.
Thus
Mottola,
(1972).
504 P.2d
84 N.M.
State
compensated
be fully
concern that
the victim
court’s
promote
primary duty
should not overshadow its
Birzon, Con-
Best &
rehabilitation of the defendant. See
(1963);
Probation;
An
Geo.LJ.
Analysis,
ditions
Merceret,
Imprison-
to Fine &
Alternatives
Sentencing
ment,
(1977).
L.Rev. 387
31 U.Miami
(footnote
508-509,
Applying discretion in was well within its clude that the lower court should of probation, appellant that as a condition ordering witness. the complaining make restitution to Ms. Welsh as sentenc- at the appellant’s attorney The made arguments whether, was not point ing point. missed the hearing contrib- Welsh, had to Ms. while he was “married” she spent than relationship to their uted more money *13 “loss”; the point sort of net him, so that suffered some she Ms. Welsh whether, being required repay was rather by with be him, impressed would what she on spent it, conduct, repeating deterred from the of his and cruelty No precise responsible way. and to live in a encouraged formula can be stated which the effort to by achieve these objectives can into an be translated exact amount of restitu- tion to paid. be Much will the exact nature of depend upon behalf, the Welsh made on expenditures Ms. appellant’s However, circumstances in which were in they made. deciding what sentence to the lower impose, court obliged Code to Sentencing
follow the
that
general principle
sentence imposed
should call for confinement
is consistent with the
protection of
public,
of the offense as it
gravity
relates to the
life of the victim and on the
impact
and the rehabilitative
community,
needs of the defendant.
1321(b).
Pa.C.S.A. §
To
as a
require appellant
condition of his
to make
restitution to Ms. Welsh was
general
consistent with this
it was
principle;
a sentence that
so the
represented—or
lower court was entitled to believe—“a constructive alterna
imprisonment,
tive to
at effecting
reha
appellant’s]
[aimed
bilitation
reintegration
into
as a law
society
abiding
”
citizen
Walton,
....
Commonwealth v.
supra,
Having to affirm the lower court’s sentence its entirety.
In its opinion the lower court states: Defendant claims that “there is
Finally, insufficient information provided order determine whether the amount to be awarded will exceed the victim’s actual the amount of restitution had not been damages.” Since set at the time Defendant filed his this is necessar- appeal, Indeed, ily following true. the determination of the Of- Services, fice of Court to hold an may Court decide additional in order to set the amount due in hearing restitution.
Slip op. (emphasis added). at 3-4
81 not clear. court is the lower contemplated by procedure planned that the court opinion court’s from the It appears of Court Serv- to the Office determination leave the initial the approve itself examine ices, might after which it sentence, however, the court the imposing amount so set. In officer to stated, above, that “I want as noted out. sort them somewhat first for me to go over these bills restitu- of the amount of I will make the final determination N.T. tion.” of proba as a condition
In restitution authorizing court sentencing that the tion, Code Sentencing provides defendant require the may to make of his crime or of the fruits make restitution
[t]o
for the
can afford to pay,
in an amount he
reparations,
damage
thereby.
loss or
caused
added).
1354(c)(8)(emphasis
18 Pa.C.S.A. §
to determine
obligation
lower court’s
it
Accordingly,
caused, and what amount
had
damage appellant
what loss or
pay
and how he should
pay,
afford to
of restitution he could
an
these duties to
delegate
free to
it. The court was not
of Proba-
Annotation,
of Condition
Propriety
See
agency.
Vio-
of Crimes of
Defendant Convicted
tion which Requires
976
Victim, 79 A.L.R.3d
Injured
Reparation
lence to Make
we said:
Fuqua, supra,
In
v.
(1977).
Commonwealth
sentence,
it is
whether
an order of restitution
Since
or
a condition of probation
sentence
as
imposed as a direct
the record. See Com-
must be
parole,
supported
or
it
(1977);
115,
Id., Pa.Super. at 27 (footnote A.2d omit- ted).
We also said:
In accordance with its primary
duty
promote the
rehabilitation
defendant,
the court
in imposing
restitution must make sure that
the amount awarded not
*15
only does not exceed the victim’s
but
damages
also does
not exceed the defendant’s
v.
to
pay. See State
ability
Garner, supra;
579,
Ariz.
566 P.2d
State
(1979)]
1057
[115
v.
Harris supra.
N.J.
Restitution can aid an offender’s rehabilitation strengthening the individual’s sense of responsibility. The probationer may learn to consider more carefully the consequences of his or her actions. One who suc- cessfully makes restitution should have a positive sense of having earned a fresh start and will have tangible evidence of his or her capacity to alter old behavior patterns and lead a law-abiding life. Conditioning pro- bation on making restitution also protects the communi- . ty’s interest having victims of crime made whole. However, conditioning the satisfaction of requirements which are beyond the probationer’s control undermines the probationer’s sense of responsibility. Huggett State, v. 790, 798, 83 Wis.2d 266 N.W.2d (1978). 407
Id., 267 Pa.Super. 508-509, (footnote A.2d at 26 omitted).
These considerations are pertinent here, especially given fact the lower court not required only to make restitution but $5,000. fined him It was incumbent upon the court to determine whether appellant could afford to pay both such a fine and make restitution in an amount in achiev- [appellant] aid constitute “an both that would obtaining some ing rehabilitation and Welsh] [Ms. Walton, supra, of redress.” Commonwealth measure Pa. at 397 A.2d at the case re-
The of sentence is reversed judgment Any with this opinion. consistent re-sentencing manded for imposed. new sentence thus be from the further must appeal CAVANAUGH, J., concurring opinion. files a CAVANAUGH, concurring: Judge, However, I wish state opinion. I join majority in the for determin- rationale understanding of the my majority’s be required appellant may which ing money amount probation. condition of pay the victim as a whether, point states that majority “[t]he *16 Welsh, had contrib- appellant to Mrs. while he was ‘married’ she on relationship spent than money uted more to their ‘loss’; point of net him, so she suffered some sort that Mr. Welsh rather, being repay required whether by with him, impressed would be spent what she it, conduct, repeating from his and deterred cruelty Majority responsible way.” to live in a and encouraged opinion, the majority I understand ante 581. As Opinion, since it was this amount pay be appellant may required I agree. Sentencing probation. as a condition of imposed with a broad- invested properly courts are “traditionally proba- fashioning conditions er measure of discretion of the individual case.” tion to the circumstances appropriate Walton, 397 A.2d Pa. Commonwealth omitted). 1184 (1979) (citation to, I, express any nor do majority
I do understand the to pay a defendant opinion propriety requiring as to the to other addition such an as imposed amount restitution I join It is this understanding with punishment. opinion. majority