Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0668 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY MICHAEL TWIDDY 03-0668 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., November 25, 2003. In this criminal case, Defendant has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from his judgment of sentence.~ He pled guilty to Accidents Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property, a misdemeanor of the third degree,2 harassment as a summary offense,3 and Driving under Suspension, a second or subsequent offense, also a summary offense.4 Defendant's sentence included a direction that he make restitution in the amount of $4,712.27 for damage to the vehicle which he struck,s While not questioning the accuracy of the damage figure,6 Defendant challenges on appeal the imposition of any restitution in the sentence--the sole issue on appeal being expressed as follows: The trial court erred in denying Defendant's Post-Sentence Motion to eliminate the obligation to pay restitution. The restitution claimant was the responsible party for the accident. Defendant did not admit to causing the accident in his guilty ~ Although Defendant's notice of appeal states that the appeal is from an order denying Defendant's post-sentence motion, the appeal is technically from the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Parlante, 2003 PA Super. 169 n.3, 823 A.2d 927, 929 n.3 (2003); Commonwealth v. Chamberlain ,442 Pa. Super. 12, 18, 658 A.2d 395,397 (1995). : Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 81, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 83743. s Act of December 6, 1976, P.L. 1482, 81, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. 82709(a) (Supp. 2003). 4 Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 81, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 81543(a) (Supp. 2003); Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 81, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 86503 (Supp. 2003); see Order of Court, July 1, 2003. 5 Order of Court, August 26, 2003. 6 N.T. 3, 11, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. plea. He admitted to leaving the scene of the accident, as prohibited by the statute.7 This opinion in support of the inclusion of a restitution requirement in Defendant's sentence Procedure 1925(a). is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate STATEMENT OF FACTS In the early morning hours8 of Sunday, March 16, 2003, Defendant was engaged in a confrontation9 with a woman beside a car parked on the berm of an exit ramp off Route 581 in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. l0 As a second vehicle, owned by Penny Stoner~ and occupied by a nineteen-year-old~2 driver, Jason Britt, and his father,~3 passed this scene on the ramp, the father ~4 observed that Defendant was beating the woman up. The father told his son to stop.~5 The son did so, and backed Ms. Stoner's car up the ramp to the location of the altercation.~6 Defendant, whose license was under suspension for at least the second time~7 and whose BAC was subsequently tested at .091%,~8 got into the car on the berm and started the engine.~9 With Ms. 7 Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed November 12, 2003. 8 N.T. 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 9 N.T. 10, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 2, Guilty Plea Colloquy, July 1, 2003; N.T. 5, 7-11, Restitution Hearing, September 30, l0 N.T. 2003. ix N.T. l: N.T. l~ N.T. 14 N.T. 15 N.T. 16 N.T. 17 N.T. 11, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 7, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 5, 10, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 5, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 10, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 3-4, Guilty Plea Colloquy, July 1, 2003. ~8 Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, para. 7, filed June 19, 2003. 19 N.T. 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 2 Stoner's car fully stopped in the cartway of the ramp,2° Defendant put his car into drive, accelerated with sufficient force to squeal the tires, and drove the vehicle directly into Ms. Stoner's car,2~ occupied by Mr. Britt and his father, spinning it around22 and inflicting almost $5,000.00 in damage.23 Defendant then exited his vehicle and disappeared into the darkness.24 On July 1, 2003, Defendant entered pleas of guilty to the offenses referred to above.25 He was sentenced on August 26, 2003.26 The sentence included a requirement that he make restitution to Ms. Stoner in the amount of $4,712.27.27 20 N.T. 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 2~ N.T. 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 22 N.T. 5, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 23 N.T. 3, 11, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 24 N.T. 5, 8, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 25 See Order of Court, July 1, 2003. The harassment plea related to his striking of the woman he was having an altercation with. N.T. 2, Guilty Plea Colloquy, July 1, 2003. 26 See Order of Court, August 23, 2003. 27 The sentence of the court was as follows: AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2003, the Defendant, Jeffrey Michael Twiddy, now appearing in court for sentence with the Public Defender, Arla M. Waller, Esquire, and having previously entered pleas of guilty at Count 3 to Accident Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle or Property, a misdemeanor of the third degree, at Count 4 to Harassment, a summary offense, and at Count 5 to Driving under Suspension, a second or subsequent offense, a summary offense carrying penalties in the form of a fine of from $200.00 to $1000.00 and a jail sentence of up to six months, and the Court being in receipt of a pre-sentence investigation report, upon which it relies, the sentence of the Court is as follows: At Count 3, Accident Involving Damage to Attended Vehicle, the Defendant is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and a fine of $200.00, and to make restitution in the amount of $4712.27 to Penny Stoner, as well as to pay a CAT fund surcharge of $30.00, and a $10.00 Emergency Medical Services fund assessment, and to undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of not less than 3 days nor more than 12 months, with credit to be given for 3 days previously served. It appearing that the Defendant has served the minimum portion of this sentence, he is parole immediately, conditioned upon his being and remaining on good behavior and complying with all written directions of his parole officer. At Count 4, Harassment, the Defendant is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and to undergo a period of probation with supervision of 90 days, conditioned upon his being and remaining on good behavior and complying with all written directions of his probation officer. 3 A post-sentence motion was filed by Defendant on September 4, 2003, challenging the imposition of restitution and requesting that the sentence be modified by the deletion of any requirement for restitution.28 In support of the request, the motion averred, inter alia, that "Defendant was not the cause of the accident and therefore, should not have to pay restitution for damage to the Stoner vehicle. ,,29 A hearing on Defendant's motion to modify the sentence was held on September 30, 2003. At the conclusion of the hearing, Defendant's counsel again argued that Defendant had not caused the accident: ·.. As we had said at the time of Mr. Twiddy' s sentencing, and I informed the DA of this at the time of Mr. Twiddy's plea, there was a dispute about if Mr. Twiddy should pay restitution, and again, we're not saying that there was any kind of evil motives of Mr. Britt stopping. He thought maybe there might have been a problem, and he stopped to see what was going on. Unfortunately, the manner which he did that, we would argue, is what was causing him backing up on a roadway in early morning hours. It's dark out on an off ramp that has a sharp curve that you have to slow down for, and he starts backing up on the roadway, and then he stops on the roadway when there's a car that's on the shoulder. And the location of the damage to the car shows that he was still on the roadway when Mr. Twiddy was trying to pull off. And although Mr. Britt did state that he had stopped his car, it wasn't stopped very long. This all happened very quickly, not a long, discem[i]ble amount of time. He stops his At Count 5, Driving under Suspension (not DUI-related), a second or subsequent offense, the Defendant is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, a fine of $500.00, a $30.00 CAT fund surcharge, and a $10.00 Emergency Medical Services fund assessment, and to undergo a period of probation with supervision of six months, conditioned upon his being and remaining on good behavior and complying with all written directions of his probation officer. The sentences imposed herein shall run concurrently with each other. 28 Defendant's Post-Sentence Motion, paras. 2-5, filed September 4, 2003. 29 Defendant's Post-Sentence Motion, para. 5. 4 car. And although there may not have been a lot of traffic, he is blocking the roadway. We would argue that, that was the cause of the accident, and further state that, at the time of the guilty plea, the facts under which Mr. Twiddy pled were being involved in the accident not causing it and leaving the scene of the accident.3° The argument of the Commonwealth was, to the contrary, that the evidence had shown that Defendant, as opposed to Mr. Britt, was the cause of the accident, and, in addition, that had Defendant not been driving when he was not permitted to do so the collision would not have occurred.3~ Following the hearing, the court entered an order denying Defendant's post-sentence motion to modify the sentence as it related to restitution.32 Defendant's appeal from the judgment of sentence was filed on October 30, 2003. DISCUSSION With respect to restitution in a criminal case, Section 1106 of the Crimes Code provides as follows: (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. Act of June 18, 1976, P.L. 394, §1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §l106(a) (Supp. 2003); see also Act of December 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, §1, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. §9754(8). Restitution can be a proper component of a sentence for a violation of the Vehicle Code. See Commonwealth v. Fuqua, 267 Pa. Super. 504, 510-11, 407 A.2d 24, 27-28 (1979). To be a proper component of a sentence, restitution must 3o N.T. 13-14, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 3~ N.T. 14-15, Restitution Hearing, September 30, 2003. 32 Order of Court, September 30, 2003. 5 be for damage which is a direct result of the defendant's violation of the law. Id at 511-12, 407 A.2d at 28; see also In reM. W., 555 Pa. 505, 511, 725 A.2d 729, 732 (1999); Commonwealth v. Hamer, 533 Pa. 14, 19, 617 A.2d 702, 705 (1992); Commonwealth v. Dohner, 725 A.2d 822, 824 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (restitution permissible only where victim suffered loss flowing from conduct forming basis of crime for which defendant held criminally accountable). It is a well-established principle that the 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 his responsibility to repair the loss or injury as far as possible. Commonwealth v. Runion, 541 Pa. 202, 206, 662 A.2d 617, 618 (1995). "[S]entences [which include a requirement of restitution] are to be encouraged as they constitute 'an aid both to the criminal in achieving rehabilitation and to his victim in obtaining some measure of redress.'" Commonwealth v. Fuqua, 267 Pa. Super. 504, 508, 407 A.2d 24, 25-26 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. Walton, 483 Pa. 588, 599, 397 A.2d 1178, 1185 (1979). In the present case, the crash which resulted in damage to Ms. Stoner's vehicle (a) was an element of Defendant's offense of leaving the scene of an accident involving an attended vehicle, (b) was, in the court's view, exclusively the fault of Defendant, and (c) was part of a criminal episode in which Defendant was in violation of the Vehicle Code by driving at all. Under the unique circumstances of this case,33 the court was of the view that Defendant's criminality was a direct cause of the victim's loss. For this reason, it imposed a requirement of restitution upon him. 33 CJ. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 319 Pa. Super. 351,466 A.2d 195 (1983) (direct link between personal injury and criminality lacking where only offense hit-and-mn). 6 BY THE COURT, Jaime M. Keating, Esq. Chief Deputy District Attorney Aria M. Waller, Esq. Assistant Public Defender J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 7