Commonwealth v. Biauce , 2017 Pa. Super. 144 ( 2017 )

J-S08033-17
2017 Pa. Super. 144
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DONALD BIAUCE :
:
Appellant : No. 926 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order June 10, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County
Criminal Division at No(s): 261 CR 1984
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J.
OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 15, 2017
Appellant, Donald Biauce, appeals from the order entered in the
McKean County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the Commonwealth’s
petition to change the payee of mandatory restitution from Ralph Porch
(“Victim”) to the estate of the deceased Victim. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Victim was driving his vehicle on November 15, 1984, with his wife, Jean
Porch, who was a passenger. Victim noticed Appellant standing on the side
of the road, next to a stopped vehicle. Victim began to slow down until he
saw that Appellant had a rifle on his person. After seeing the rifle, Victim
increased his speed. Appellant fired shots at Victim’s vehicle, which directly
struck Victim; the shattered glass from the windshield injured Victim’s wife.
J-S08033-17
Victim continued driving until he located the police and reported the
incident. Victim’s injuries were part of a two-day crime spree by Appellant.
As a result of the crime spree, a jury convicted Appellant on April 30,
1985, of four counts of attempted murder, two counts each of aggravated
assault, unlawful restraint, burglary, and theft, and one count each of
robbery and resisting arrest. On September 27, 1985, the court sentenced
Appellant to forty-four (44) to eighty-eight (88) years’ incarceration and
ordered Appellant to pay restitution to three (3) victims. Regarding Victim
Ralph Porch, the court ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of
$9,975.68, plus future medical expenses.
On April 15, 2016, the McKean County Adult Probation Department
received correspondence from Francis Porch, Trustee, regarding the
establishment of Victim Ralph Porch’s estate and the creation of a trust. The
Commonwealth filed a petition on April 22, 2016, to amend the payee of the
restitution order from Ralph Porch to the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch,
with the Trustee of Francis Porch. Appellant filed a pro se answer in
opposition on June 1, 2016. On June 10, 2016, the court granted the
Commonwealth’s petition with explanation and changed the payee of the
restitution to the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch, with the Trustee of Francis
Porch. The amount of restitution remained the same. Appellant filed a pro
se notice of appeal on June 28, 2016. The trial court ordered Appellant on
July 6, 2016, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal,
-2-
J-S08033-17
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The order was served on July 7, 2016.
Appellant deposited his Rule 1925(b) statement in the prison mail on July
26, 2016, within the twenty-one day period. See Commonwealth v.
Jones, 549 Pa. 58, 700 A.2d 423 (1997) (holding the prison mailbox rule
applies to all appeals by pro se prisoners).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ER[R] WHEN IT GRANTED A
MOTION TO MODIFY A RESTITUTION ORDER GRANTING
PAYMENT TO A THIRD PARTY OR ESTATE WHO IS NOT THE
VICTIM OF THE CRIME?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ER[R] WHEN IT GRANTED A
MOTION TO MODIFY A RESTITUTION ORDER AFTER 30
YEARS WITHOUT A HEARING WHICH VIOLATED
[APPELLANT’S] DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ER[R] WHEN IT ORDERED THE
ENTIRE RESTITUTION AMOUNT OF $9,975.68 WHEN
[APPELLANT] HAS BEEN MAKING ACT 84 PAYMENTS SINCE
2000?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ER[R] WHEN IT ORDERED
RESTITUTION TO AN ESTATE WHEN AN ESTATE DOES NOT
QUALIFY FOR OR IS DEFINED AS A VICTIM UNDER 18
PA.C.S.A [§] 1106(H)?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ER[R] WHEN IT GRANTED A
MOTION TO MODIFY A RESTITUTION ORDER WHEN IT
LACKED THE JURISDICTION UNDER 42 PA.C.S.A. [§] 5505
AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEVER ARGUED ANY JUST
CAUSE FOR THE MODIFICATION?
(Appellant’s Brief at 8).
For purposes of this disposition, we combine Appellant’s issues.
-3-
J-S08033-17
Appellant argues payment of restitution originally ordered as part of a direct
sentence for a crime involving personal injury is limited to the direct victim
of the crime, and the victim’s estate does not qualify as a victim.
Specifically, Appellant contends the Commonwealth committed fraud upon
the court when the Commonwealth asked the court to change the restitution
payee to the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch, because Jean Porch was not a
“victim,” and the original restitution order did not include her name.
Appellant avers information for modification of a restitution order must come
straight from the victim, and here, the Trustee of Victim’s estate presented
the estate information to the Commonwealth. Appellant also maintains he
has already made restitution payments, and the court should have modified
the restitution amount to reflect those partial payments. Appellant further
insists the court had no jurisdiction to modify the original restitution
sentencing order, because it was over thirty years old. Appellant concludes
the trial court improperly modified the restitution order, and this Court must
vacate the modified order and restore the original order. Appellant also
requests this Court to order an accounting of the money Appellant previously
paid toward restitution. We disagree.
The court’s power to impose restitution is a matter of statutory
construction, which poses questions of law, over which our review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Hall, 622 Pa. 396, 409, 80 A.3d 1204, 1211 (2013).
-4-
J-S08033-17
The primary statute at issue in this appeal is the statute governing
restitution, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
§ 1106. Restitution for injuries to person or
property
(a) General rule.‒Upon conviction for any crime
wherein property has been stolen, converted or otherwise
unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially decreased as
a direct result of the crime, or wherein the victim suffered
personal injury directly resulting from the crime, the
offender shall be sentenced to make restitution in addition
to the punishment prescribed therefor.
* * *
(c) Mandatory restitution.‒
(1) The court shall order full restitution:
(i) Regardless of the current financial resources of
the defendant, so as to provide the victim with the
fullest compensation for the loss. The court shall not
reduce a restitution award by any amount that the
victim has received from the Crime Victim’s
Compensation Board or other governmental agency
but shall order the defendant to pay any restitution
ordered for loss previously compensated by the board
to the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund or other
designated account when the claim involves a
government agency in addition to or in place of the
board. The court shall not reduce a restitution award
by any amount that the victim has received from an
insurance company but shall order the defendant to
pay any restitution ordered for loss previously
compensated by an insurance company to the
insurance company.
(ii) If restitution to more than one person is set at the
same time, the court shall set priorities of payment.
However, when establishing priorities, the court shall
order payment in the following order:
-5-
J-S08033-17
(A) The victim.
(B) The Crime Victim’s Compensation Board.
(C) Any other government agency which has provided
reimbursement to the victim as a result of the
defendant's criminal conduct.
(D) Any insurance company which has provided
reimbursement to the victim as a result of the
defendant's criminal conduct.
(2) At the time of sentencing the court shall specify the
amount and method of restitution. In determining the
amount and method of restitution, the court:
(i) Shall consider the extent of injury suffered by the
victim, the victim’s request for restitution as presented
to the district attorney in accordance with paragraph
(4) and such other matters as it deems appropriate.
(ii) May order restitution in a lump sum, by monthly
installments or according to such other schedule as it
deems just.
(iii) Shall not order incarceration of a defendant for
failure to pay restitution if the failure results from the
offender’s inability to pay.
(iv) Shall consider any other preexisting orders
imposed on the defendant, including, but not limited
to, orders imposed under this title or any other title.
(3) The court may, at any time or upon the
recommendation of the district attorney that is based on
information received from the victim and the probation
section of the county or other agent designated by the
county commissioners of the county with the approval of
the president judge to collect restitution, alter or
amend any order of restitution made pursuant to
paragraph (2), provided, however, that the court
states its reasons and conclusions as a matter of
-6-
J-S08033-17
record for any change or amendment to any
previous order.
(4)(i) It shall be the responsibility of the district
attorneys of the respective counties to make a
recommendation to the court at or prior to the time of
sentencing as to the amount of restitution to be
ordered. This recommendation shall be based upon
information solicited by the district attorney and
received from the victim.
(ii) Where the district attorney has solicited
information from the victims as provided in
subparagraph (i) and has received no response, the
district attorney shall, based on other available
information, make a recommendation to the court for
restitution.
(iii) The district attorney may, as appropriate,
recommend to the court that the restitution order be
altered or amended as provided in paragraph (3).
* * *
(e) Restitution payments and records.‒Restitution,
when ordered by a judge, shall be made by the offender to
the probation section of the county in which he was
convicted or to another agent designated by the county
commissioners with the approval of the president judge of
the county to collect restitution according to the order of
the court or, when ordered by a magisterial district judge,
shall be made to the magisterial district judge. The
probation section or other agent designated by the county
commissioners of the county with the approval of the
president judge to collect restitution and the magisterial
district judge shall maintain records of the restitution order
and its satisfaction and shall forward to the victim the
property or payments made pursuant to the restitution
order.
* * *
-7-
J-S08033-17
(h) Definitions.‒As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them
in this subsection:
“Crime.” Any offense punishable under this title or by a
magisterial district judge.
* * *
“Offender.” Any person who has been found guilty of any
crime.
* * *
“Restitution.” The return of the property of the victim or
payments in cash or the equivalent thereof pursuant to an
order of the court.
“Victim.” As defined in section 479.1 of the act of April 9,
1929 (P.L. 177, No. 175), known as The Administrative
Code of 1929. [71 P.S. § 180-9.1] The term includes the
Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund if compensation has
been paid by the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund to the
victim and any insurance company that has compensated
the victim for loss under an insurance contract.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106 (emphasis added).1 The Sentencing Code provides for
restitution as follows:
§ 9721. Sentencing generally
* * *
____________________________________________
1
Whether the definition of “victim” under Section 1106 includes the more
expansive definition of “victim” under the Crime Victim’s Act, at 18 P.S. §
11.103, remains subject to disagreement. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Holmes, 155 A.3d 69 (Pa.Super. 2017), which is a recent, evenly divided
en banc decision of this Court. We do not have to address that matter,
however, because Ralph Porch was a direct victim of Appellant’s crime and
entitled to mandatory restitution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c) and 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(c).
-8-
J-S08033-17
(c) Mandatory restitution.–In addition to the
alternatives set forth in subsection (a) of this section the
court shall order the defendant to compensate the victim
of [the defendant’s] criminal conduct for the damage or
injury that [the victim] sustained. …
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(c). “[T]he primary purpose of restitution is
rehabilitation of the offender by impressing upon him that his criminal
conduct caused the victim’s loss or personal injury and that it is [the
offender’s] responsibility to repair the loss or injury as far as possible.”
Commonwealth v. Solomon, 25 A.3d 380, 389 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 615 Pa. 766, 40 A.3d 1236 (2012) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Mariani, 869 A.2d 484, 486 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
“An order of restitution is a sentence, …thus, the amount awarded is
within the sound discretion of the trial court and must be supported by the
record.” Commonwealth v. Boone, 862 A.2d 639, 644 (Pa.Super. 2004).
The trial court is required to specify the amount of restitution at sentencing,
but it may modify the restitution order at any time if the court explains its
reasons for modification on the record. Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 601
Pa. 58, 65, 970 A.2d 1131, 1135 (2009). See also 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
1106(c)(3). If the sentencing court sets some restitution at sentencing, the
court can later modify the restitution as long as the court meets the
requirements of Section 1106(c)(3). Dietrich, supra at 1135. The broad
language of Section 1106(c)(3) indicates the court has jurisdiction to modify
a restitution order at any time without regard to when information should
-9-
J-S08033-17
have been available for consideration. Id.
“A personal representative in the person of the executor or
administrator of [the victim’s] estate stands in the shoes of the deceased
victim as far as entitlement to benefits is concerned.” Commonwealth v.
Lebarre, 961 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Freeze v. Donegal
Mut. Ins. Co., 504 Pa. 218, 224, 470 A.2d 958, 961 (1983)). If the
legislature wanted to extinguish a victim’s right to benefits upon death, the
legislature would have specifically provided this language in the statute. Id.
“[B]ecause an estate stands in the shoes of the victim under the restitution
statute, it is the ‘victim’ within the meaning of that statute.” Id. at 181.
See also Hall, supra (noting court can order restitution payable to crime
victim’s estate).
In the instant case, Appellant fired gunshots at Victim’s vehicle. The
shots directly struck Victim. A jury convicted Appellant of multiple crimes
related to this shooting, and the court sentenced Appellant to a term of
incarceration and ordered Appellant to pay restitution to Victim Ralph Porch,
in the amount of $9,975.68, plus future medical expenses. More than thirty
years later, the Commonwealth received correspondence from the Trustee of
Victim’s estate. The Commonwealth filed a petition to change the payee of
the restitution aspect of the sentencing order to the Estate of Jean and Ralph
Porch, with the Trustee of Francis Porch. The court granted the
Commonwealth’s petition and changed only the payee of the restitution to
- 10 -
J-S08033-17
the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch, with the Trustee of Francis Porch; the
court did not alter the amount of restitution.
Here, Victim Ralph Porch suffered personal injury as a direct result of
Appellant’s crime; and the court correctly awarded restitution. See 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(a); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(c). The court specified the
amount of restitution at sentencing as required. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
1106(c)(2); Dietrich, supra. When the court later modified the restitution
order to change the name of the payee to the payee’s estate, as Section
1106 authorizes, the court explained its decision for the record. See 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(3); Dietrich, supra. Section 1106 did not require
Ralph Porch or his estate to provide the information underlying this
modification to the court. According to Section 1106, that information can
come from the Commonwealth, based on material submitted to the
Commonwealth on behalf of the victim. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(4).
Likewise, Section 1106 does not require a hearing to amend the order of
restitution in this manner. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(3). Thus, the court
followed proper procedure when it changed the payee of the original
restitution order.
Although the original restitution order did not include Jean Porch, the
inclusion of her name in the Estate does not invalidate the amended
restitution order. The Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch stands in the shoes of
the deceased Victim. See Lebarre, supra. As the bona fide estate of the
- 11 -
J-S08033-17
original payee, it does not matter how the estate is nominated. Appellant
cites no law to support his contrary contention. Changing the payee to
Victim’s estate serves the purpose of restitution, which is to repair Victim’s
injury as far as possible, and nothing in the statute indicates Victim’s right to
benefits extinguishes upon his death. See Solomon, supra; Lebarre,
supra. Furthermore, all payments made to the Estate of Jean and Ralph
Porch, together with all previous payments made to Victim Ralph Porch, shall
be credited toward the total amount of restitution Appellant was sentenced
to pay. Accordingly, we affirm the order changing the payee of restitution
from Ralph Porch to the Estate of Jean and Ralph Porch.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/15/2017
- 12 -