Commonwealth v. Rohrer, 719 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)

Cases | Commonwealth v. Rohrer, 719 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) | 2018

The defendant entered an open plea to driving under the influence, receiving stolen property, fleeing and eluding the police, and various summary offenses. The issue of restitution was not raised by any party at the time of sentencing. Three-and-a-half months later, the Commonwealth filed a motion to amend the sentence, requesting that the court amend the defendant’s sentence to include an order of restitution for $2,455.60, which represented an estimate of the damage sustained by the victim’s vehicle when the defendant drove it over an embankment. The defendant responded, arguing that the motion was untimely and that the court was without jurisdiction to amend his sentence. The sentencing court sided with the Commonwealth and ordered a modification of the defendant’s sentence to include restitution. The defendant appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the defendant, finding that, contrary to the Commonwealth’s contention, the imposition of restitution in cases involving property damage is not mandatory. In fact, the imposition of restitution is a matter vested within the discretion of the sentencing court. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was required to file a timely post-sentence motion challenging the sentence, which it failed to do. Since the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to entertain the Commonwealth’s untimely motion to amend the defendant’s sentence, the order had to be vacated.