Com. v. Cochran, S., II ( 2018 )

J-S20005-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
STEVEN WINFIELD COCHRAN, II, :
:
Appellant : No. 1529 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order entered September 15, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0000361-2017.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2018
Steven W. Cochran, II, appeals from the restitution order imposed
following Cochran’s open guilty plea to terroristic threats, simple assault and
criminal mischief.1 After careful review, we vacate Cochran’s restitution order
and the judgment of sentence, and remand for resentencing.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On December 4, 2016, [Cochran] was charged with
Terroristic Threats (M1), Simple Assault (M2), two counts of
Criminal Mischief (F3), Harassment (M3) and two counts of
Harassment (S). The charges resulted from an incident
which occurred at the residence of [Cochran], which was a
vacation home owned by his grandparents in which
[Cochran] had lived for about ten days. When the
grandparents visited [Cochran] at the residence on
December 4, 2016, [Cochran] was intoxicated. [Cochran]
began destroying items of personal property within the
residence and then threatened his grandmother and
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2706, 2701, and 3304, respectively.
J-S20005-18
ultimately physically assaulted his grandmother, resulting in
injuries to her. During the course of the altercation, a fire
broke out within the home and caused further damage.
[Cochran] admitted to all aforementioned facts at the guilty
plea hearing.
On June 29, 2017, [Cochran] entered an open plea to
Count 1 – Terroristic Threats, Count 2 – Simple Assault and
Count 3 – Criminal Mischief. At the very commencement of
the entry of [Cochran’s] guilty plea, his prior counsel from
the public defender’s office, Alisa Livaditis, Esquire, advised
that a restitution hearing was required because of the
amount of restitution being claimed exceeded $65,000.
Attorney Livaditis disputed that [Cochran] was responsible
for all of the damages and also indicated that she believed
a number of items being claimed were the property of
[Cochran]. Clearly the record indicates that [Cochran] and
his counsel were aware of the amount of restitution claimed
and had a list of property allegedly damaged. Defense
counsel requested a ninety-minute hearing and the hearing
was scheduled in court on the first available date of August
28, 2017. [Cochran] then moved forward with his plea.
This Court also received a written and verbal victim
impact statement which provided greater detail regarding
[Cochran’s] destructive actions and physical assault of his
grandmother. [Cochran] was sentenced to an aggregate
sentence of three to twenty-three months in York County
Prison plus costs of prosecution. At the request of defense
counsel, [Cochran] was directed to remain in the York
County Prison, and not released to his Maryland detainer,
until after the restitution hearing.
On August 28, 2017, a restitution hearing commenced.
[Cochran] was now represented by Brad Peiffer, Esquire of
the public defender’s office. The assistant district attorney
called the case and indicated that defense counsel was
disputing more items of restitution than originally indicated
and this revised position would require more testimony than
was originally anticipated. Attorney Peiffer then raised the
issue of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the case. This
Court overruled Attorney Peiffer’s objection and proceeded
with testimony, as the hearing was specially requested both
orally and by written motion at [Cochran’s] request. At the
conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, additional time was
-2-
J-S20005-18
needed to take [Cochran’s] testimony and the hearing was
continued to September 15, 2017.
On September 15, 2017, [Cochran] appeared with his
third attorney from the public defender’s office, Anthony J.
Tambourino, who renewed his objection to the Court’s
jurisdiction to enter a restitution order. After making
additional argument on that issue, defense counsel
conceded that [Cochran] had no valid claim to contest the
restitution amount presented by the Commonwealth. After
further clarification, the Court entered a restitution order in
the amount of $70,951.59, and directed probation to assess
[Cochran] upon release from incarceration to determine his
earnings and set an appropriate monthly payment amount
as part of the probationary tail.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/8/2017, at 2-5 (internal citations and footnote
omitted).2 This timely appeal followed. Both Cochran and the trial court have
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Cochran argues the following on appeal:
The Commonwealth failed to make a recommendation for
restitution and the trial court failed to set restitution at the
time of sentencing on June 29, 2017, as required by 18
Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(2). The trial court was without
jurisdiction to set restitution at the September 15, 2017
restitution hearing, because it was held outside of the thirty
day period the trial court had jurisdiction after sentencing
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. As restitution was not set at
sentencing, restitution could not be altered or amended at
a later date. The restitution order entered on September
15, 2017 is [illegal] therefore, void and should be vacated.
See Cochran’s Brief at 4 (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
2 Cochran was not given a probationary sentence. The Commonwealth
acknowledges this fact in its sur-reply brief. Thus, its claim that the restitution
order was entered as a term of probation is without merit. See
Commonwealth Brief at 11; 42 Pa C.S.A. § 9754.
-3-
J-S20005-18
We begin by noting our well settled standard of review. The question
as to whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence is a question of law.
Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2010). An
appellate court’s standard of review over such questions is de novo and the
scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 238 (Pa.
Super. 2014).
18 Pa.C.S.A § 1106(c)(2) provides that “at the time of sentencing, the
court shall specify the amount and method of restitution.” In
Commonwealth v. Dinoia, 801 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2002), this Court
clarified that § 1106 “mandates an initial determination of the amount of
restitution at sentencing” so as to “[provide] the defendant with certainty as
to his sentence, and at the same [allow] for subsequent modification, if
necessary.” at 1257. Cochran avers that “[b]ecause the trial court failed to
set restitution at the time of sentencing, but instead, set it outside of its
jurisdictional time limits, [we] should vacate the order for restitution.”
Cochran’s Brief at 10.
Here, the trial court postponed determining the restitution until after
sentencing. This is clearly contrary to the plain language of § 1106(c)(2).
The trial court reasoned, in its opinion, that Cochran’s case was “factually
distinguishable from Dinoia” relying on the fact the appellant in Dinoia had
his restitution hearing scheduled 18 months after sentencing, while here,
Cochran’s hearing was scheduled only 60 days after sentencing. Trial Court
-4-
J-S20005-18
Opinion, 11/8/2017, at 5. The trial court further points out that it was Cochran
who requested a restitution hearing during sentencing. Id.
The facts that the trial court relies on do not excuse it from the statutory
mandate requiring it to set restitution at the time of sentencing. The
prosecutor stated during sentencing that he believed restitution would be
around $65,000. The trial court could have easily set restitution at this
amount to conform with the statute, scheduled a hearing, and then modified
the restitution accordingly. The law is clear that the trial court was obligated
to set Cochran’s restitution during sentencing, and we therefore agree with
Cochran that the trial court’s restitution order was illegal.
We now turn to the question as to what remedy is appropriate under
the circumstances of this case. Cochran relies heavily on Dinoia, arguing his
situation is “analogous” to that case. In Dinoia, this Court vacated the
restitution order after the trial court failed to set the restitution at sentencing.
Thus, Cochran requests that his restitution order should likewise be vacated,
while leaving the rest of his sentence intact. However, since Dinoia, this
Court has routinely vacated illegal restitution orders and remanded the case
for resentencing. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712,
716-18 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreeing with the Commonwealth that because
“disposition apparently alter[ed] the sentencing scheme of the trial court, we
must vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing”); Commonwealth
v. Mariani, 869 A.2d 484, 487 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating the remedy as
“remand[ing] for resentencing rather than vacating the restitution order as
-5-
J-S20005-18
[the appellant] insists is appropriate”); Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d
813, 819 (Pa. Super. 2014) (agreeing with the Commonwealth that the proper
remedy “is for the trial court to have an opportunity to impose a new
restitution order”).
The Commonwealth urges us that “the appropriate remedy is to vacate
the sentence and remand for resentencing.” Commonwealth’s Sur-Reply Brief
at 1. The Commonwealth argues that vacating the order without remanding
for resentencing would upset the original sentencing scheme. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 19.
However, Cochran contests that his appeal was taken from the
restitution order, instead of the sentencing order, which limits this Court to
vacating his restitution order and it may not remand for resentencing. See
Cochran’s Reply Brief at 5. We disagree.
An appellate court may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or
reverse any order brought before it and may remand the
matter. If our disposition upsets the overall sentencing
scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court
can restructure its sentence plan. By contrast, if our
decision does not alter the overall scheme, there is no need
for a remand.
Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal
citations omitted).
Here, we find the order of restitution was integral to the trial court’s
sentencing scheme. In Commonwealth v. Mariani, 869 A.2d 484, 487 (Pa.
Super. 2005), this Court addressed a similar issue where the appellant
-6-
J-S20005-18
requested that his restitution order be vacated because the trial court failed
to impose the order during sentencing. We held that “because the sentence
[] was an integrated one intended from the outset to consist of both
confinement and monetary elements, and because both were not imposed
contemporaneously, the illegality of one part invalidates to whole.” Id. at
487.
Further, the trial court stated in its opinion that “vacat[ing] the
restitution order [would provide Cochran] with a benefit that was not included
in the bargain struck for the entry of his guilty plea” and that Cochran’s
acknowledgment that he owed restitution at sentencing “was certainly part of
[the trial court’s] consideration of the recommended plea bargain.” Trial Court
Opinion, 11/8/2017, at 6. Under these circumstances, we are confident that
the trial court would not have accepted Cochran’s guilty plea without the
understanding that it would impose restitution.
We agree with the Commonwealth that if we vacated the order imposing
restitution, without remanding the issue for resentencing, we would upset the
trial court’s original sentencing scheme. Goldhammer, supra. As such, we
hold that the appropriate remedy is for the trial court to have an opportunity
to impose a new sentence which includes a restitution order.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in holding that
Cochran’s original restitution order was legal. Accordingly, the trial court’s
September 15, 2017 order is reversed, Cochran’s judgment of sentence is
vacated, and case is remanded for resentencing.
-7-
J-S20005-18
Order of sentence reversed. Judgement of sentence vacated. Case
remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/25/18
-8-