The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP-21-CR-0001807-2011 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAIME SUE DOYLE : CP-21-CR-1807-2011 IN RE: OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., October 26, 2012:-- Before the court is the Commonwealth’s Motion to Modify Restitution as a Condition of Probation per 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(a). Following a hearing on October 22, 2012, our examination of the exhibits, and consideration of the argument of counsel, we issue this opinion to clarify the basis for our determination of the appropriate amount of restitution. The procedural background can be set forth succinctly. The Defendant was found guilty on June 26, 2012 of one count of obtaining public welfare funds by misrepresentation, and sentencing was scheduled for July 31, 2012. The Commonwealth requested a continuance of sentencing to enable it to determine the amount of restitution due and owing. At the sentencing hearing on August 14, 2012, the Commonwealth and Defendant agreed that the court should order $3,001 as the amount of restitution, with the Commonwealth given leave to file a 1 motion to modify that amount. On August 24, 2012, the Commonwealth filed its motion to modify resulting in the aforesaid hearing. As clear as the procedural status is, the issue of restitution has been a moving target from the outset of this case. In the Complainant’s March 9, 2011 1 The parties stipulated at trial that “if it is determined that willfully false statements were made by the Defendant, the amount of assistance she received was at least $3,000.00 greater than she would have otherwise received.” CP-21-CR-1807-2011 affidavit, restitution was listed as $41,894.76. Although this amount was carried forward by the Probation Office in its presentence report, given the Commonwealth’s request for a continuance to determine restitution that figure was obviously not etched in granite. In fact, the Commonwealth’s motion to modify stated that the “amount of restitution owed is at least $22,860.45” (emphasis in original). Following the direct examination of the Commonwealth’s final witness on October 22, 2012, the figures proffered by the Commonwealth totaled $37,463.73; however, during cross-examination, the witness recalculated the amount of cash assistance, and reduced the total figure to $29,532.15. Having received ample grist for our mill, we will grind these numbers down to get a number that accurately reflects the Defendant’s obligation. Initially, it is important to note that the figure $29,532.15 represents the total amount of the overpayments made to the Defendant if she had been deceptive in her initial application. Although we do not take issue with the jury’s decision that the Defendant obtained at least $3,000 improperly, we disagree with the Commonwealth’s contention that the verdict constitutes a finding that the Defendant’s fraudulent conduct began in March of 2009 and continued through June of 2010. To the contrary, we note that the second element of the offense, agreed upon by counsel and presented to the jurors, merely required the jurors to find “that either prior to, at the time of, or subsequent to submitting her application for assistance, the Defendant made a willfully false statement or -2- CP-21-CR-1807-2011 misrepresentation or willfully failed to disclose a material fact regarding her 2 eligibility ….” (Emphasis added.) The Commonwealth argues that the jury found that the Defendant made the false statements at the time of her application; however, the jury never addressed that specific issue. They were tasked with determining if the Defendant acted deceptively at any time between March of 2009 and June of 2010. The Commonwealth’s argument also runs counter to the court’s recollection of the testimony at trial. In short, the jury’s verdict is consistent with our finding that the Defendant did not make a willfully false statement “at the time of” her application for assistance, but that she failed to inform the assistance office “subsequent to submitting her application” that her boyfriend had moved back into her residence. Given the patchwork of evidence and the Commonwealth’s own difficulties 3 in determining what the restitution should be, the court would be remiss to merely accept a winner-takes-all approach. Instead, we conclude, based on the evidence at trial, that the Defendant’s misrepresentations were more likely to have occurred in 2010 than in March of 2009. We do not arrive at this decision lightly. It has been repeatedly noted that the imposition of restitution is within the sound discretion of the sentencing court; however, it must be supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Keenan, 853 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. 2004). In arriving at a just amount of restitution, we have 2 Elements of Offense submitted to the jury on June 26, 2012 pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. No. 644, page 2. 3 We do not question the professionalism of the prosecutor or the lead investigator – both are immensely capable and experienced. Rather, we suggest that the nature of the beast, welfare fraud, is often extremely difficult to uncover and prove. -3- CP-21-CR-1807-2011 reviewed not only the record of the trial but also the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing on restitution. Having done that, the court is statutorily required to impose restitution on the Defendant with the purpose of impressing upon her that her criminal conduct caused the victim’s injury and that it is her responsibility to repair the injury as far as possible. Id. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(c). And, lest there be any question, the Department of Public Welfare is an appropriate “victim” in cases of welfare fraud. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 905 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 2006). Nevertheless, in a case such as ours, it is the court that must determine the proper amount of restitution within the guidelines of the jury’s verdict. Commonwealth v. Dohner, 725 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super. 1995). As is the case in many monetary squabbles, the truth is somewhere between the Commonwealth’s figure of $29,532.15 and the Defendant’s figure of $3,001.00. Although the Defendant argues that her mistake occurred in May of 2009 when she did not immediately report that her boyfriend had returned to her residence, under those circumstances, her error would have been not only de minimis from the perspective of culpability but also from the perspective of restitution – the amount owed would have been less than the $3,000.00 stipulated to by the parties and confirmed by the jury. Just as we do not arrive at our decision lightly, nor do we arrive at it based on any sympathy for the Defendant or concern with her ability to pay. Restitution must be ordered despite the financial status of the Defendant, whose indigence is only relevant at the time of probation or parole revocation. Commonwealth v. -4- CP-21-CR-1807-2011 Rohner, 719 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 1998). 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c). To be sure, the Defendant is in many ways a sympathetic figure, and our sense of justice and mercy resulted in her probationary sentence. Our sense of justice alone guides us with respect to determining the full amount of restitution. Therefore, after reviewing the record and sharpening our pencil, we conclude that the Defendant is responsible for the overpayments that occurred in the calendar year 2010. Based on our review of the exhibits from the restitution hearing we find that the Defendant received overpayments in the following amounts: cash assistance -- $906.72; SNAP -- $3,156.00; medical assistance -- $2,875.15; and subsidized childcare -- $4,769.92, all of which totals $11,707.79. Finally, we find that this restitution not only compensates the Department of Public Welfare but also meets the rehabilitative needs of the Defendant. Accordingly, we enter the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of October, 2012, following a hearing on the Commonwealth’s Motion to Modify Restitution, we amend our sentencing order of August 14, 2012 to reflect that the amount of restitution to be paid to the Department of Public Welfare is $11,707.79. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. -5- CP-21-CR-1807-2011 Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire For the Commonwealth Shane B. Kope, Esquire For Defendant Probation :sal -6- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JAIME SUE DOYLE : CP-21-CR-1807-2011 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of October, 2012, following a hearing on the Commonwealth’s Motion to Modify Restitution, we amend our sentencing order of August 14, 2012 to reflect that the amount of restitution to be paid to the Department of Public Welfare is $11,707.79. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire For the Commonwealth Shane B. Kope, Esquire For Defendant Probation :sal