Commonwealth v. Shotwell, 717 A.2d 1039 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)

Cases | Commonwealth v. Shotwell, 717 A.2d 1039 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) | 2018

A jury convicted the defendant of six counts of theft by deception, six counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds, and one count of violating the Securities Act. The defendant filed a post-trial motion to modify his sentence, arguing that any money he owed to the victim had been discharged in prior bankruptcy proceedings. The trial court denied the motion, and he appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the defendant’s sentence of restitution was not void as a result of his personal bankruptcy proceedings. First, the defendant did not develop this issue with an adequate discussion or citations to relevant supporting authorities. Furthermore, the defendant did not present this issue to the trial court for its consideration. Finally, the trial court’s order of restitution arose out of the traditional responsibility of the Commonwealth to protect its citizens by enforcing its criminal statutes and to rehabilitate offenders by imposing a criminal sanction intended for that purpose. Thus, the order of restitution that was entered subsequent to the bankruptcy discharge was separate and distinct from the discharge involved in the defendant’s civil debt, and the defendant could not avoid the consequences of his criminal scheme as a result of proceedings pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code or another Pennsylvania law.