HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0432-2004
COMMONWEAL TH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE
CP-21-CR-0432-2004
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Bayley, J., September 30, 2005:--
On February 28, 2005, defendant, Christopher M. Moore, was found guilty of
criminal mischieC and disorderly conduct.2 On May 31, 2005, he was sentenced to pay
the costs of prosecution on the count of disorderly conduct. On the count of criminal
mischief, he was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, make restitution to
Matthew Anderson in the amount of $3,533.65, and undergo a period of unsupervised
probation for six months. A post-sentence motion was filed challenging the order of
restitution. Following a hearing, the order of restitution was affirmed on August 2,
2005. Defendant filed a direct appeal from that order to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.
The incident leading to the convictions occurred on November 15, 2003, when
defendant climbed onto the hood and roof of a 1989 Volkswagen Wolfsburg Collectors
Edition owned by Matthew Anderson, causing substantial damage. The vehicle had
been restored by Anderson using parts and specialty lead paint shipped from Germany.
1 A misdemeanor of the second degree in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. S 3304(a)(2).
CP-21-CR-0432-2004
As a result of defendant's criminal mischief, the hood was dented and the sunroof
collapsed.3 Anderson obtained a written estimate of $3,533.65 from Jamn Gears
Performance for parts and labor to repair the vehicle. He purchased the parts from
Jamn Gears for $1,526 in cash.4 He hired a person who worked for an independent
garage in Brookville, Pennsylvania, who did the work. He paid that person $4,000 in
cash and that included the specialty paint from Germany at $150 a quart to match the
paint on the vehicle. We entered an order of restitution of $3,533.65, which was the
estimate from Jamn Gears Performance for labor at the rate of $48 an hour to repair all
damaged parts and install replacement parts as needed to do the painting necessary to
blend with the existing paint on the car.
Defendant argues that the order for restitution in the amount of $3,533.65 is not
supported by the record, and that the court erred in permitting Anderson to testify about
the contents of the written repair estimate. He cites Commonwealth v. Seminko, 297
Pa. Super. 418 (1982), on appeal involving an issue of restitution for damage to a car,
where the Superior Court noted:
At trial, the lower court had properly sustained the Appellants' objection to
hearsay testimony as to the amount of damages, since the car had not
been repaired and the complainant sought to testify to the contents of an
2 A misdemeanor of the third degree in violation of 18 Pa. C. S. S 5503.
3 Pictures admitted into evidence at trial show the damage.
4 He was not able to obtain a receipt for the hearing because Jamn Gears has gone out
of business. He testified, however, that he understood that Jamn Gears purchased the
parts from Cumberland Valley Motors, and he produced a parts list for his car from
Cumberland Valley Motors for a price of $1 ,592.36.
-2-
CP-21-CR-0432-2004
estimate of repair obtained from a third party.
Unlike the facts in Seminko, Anderson's car has been repaired. Despite some
discrepancies in his testimony, we believed him when he testified that he purchased
the parts for $1,526, and paid $4,000 for all of the work done on the car. The written
estimate for parts and all work of $3,533.65 from Jamn Gears Performance showed that
Anderson paid more than he had to in order to return his the car to the condition it was
before defendant's criminal mischief. Accordingly, we properly awarded $3,533.65 in
restitution, which award is support by the record.
(Date)
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire
Jaime Keating, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire
F or Defendant
:sal
-3-