Com. v. Davis, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Davis, R.

DecidedApril 29, 2021

Docket13 WDA 2020

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Davis, R. (Com. v. Davis, R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Davis, R., (Pa. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S43036-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : RONEESE DANIA DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 13 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 13, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0011185-2017

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: April 29, 2021

Appellant, Roneese Dania Davis, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following the entry

of her negotiated guilty pleas to simple assault, harassment, criminal mischief,

and disorderly conduct.1 After careful review, we vacate the judgment of

sentence and remand for resentencing.2

The trial court previously set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as

follows:

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1), 2709(a)(1), 3304(a)(5), and 5503(a)(4), respectively.

2On November 18, 2020, we stayed our disposition of this case pending this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lopez, 2021 PA Super 51 (filed March 23, 2021) (en banc). Now that this Court has issued its decision in Lopez, we lift the stay order. J-S43036-20

On March 12, 2018, [Appellant and Co-Defendant] pled guilty to the above referenced charges and were sentenced in accordance with a plea agreement to two (2) years of probation at the count of simple assault, followed by a consecutive one (1) year period of probation for disorderly conduct. The facts, which were stipulated to at the guilty plea [hearing] are as follows[.] On May 20, 2017, police responded to an assault in-progress on a Port Authority bus. The officer observed the victim in the rear of the bus with visible facial injuries, including blood inside and around her mouth and nose. The victim complained of head and facial pain, vision problems, and reported that her eyeglasses were broken during the assault. Video surveillance footage captured the assault and corroborated the victim and witness accounts that [Appellant and Co-Defendant] physically attacked the victim by repeatedly punching her about the face. At sentencing, the Commonwealth submitted a restitution order for $5,383.88 representing the costs associated with some of the victim’s medical treatment.1 [Appellant and Co-Defendant] requested a restitution hearing. The hearing took place on April 13, 2018, wherein they argued that the medical records were incomplete and that the Commonwealth failed to establish direct causation between the assault and the detached retina diagnosis.[3] The Court became aware during the hearing that the Commonwealth had received additional medical records, prompting a continuation of the hearing. When the parties reconvened before [the c]ourt on May 8, 2018, [Appellant and Co-Defendant] reiterated their argument regarding lack of direct causation and also challenged the authority of the court to order restitution payable to Equian. Citing 18 P.S. § 11.103, [Appellant and Co-Defendant] argued that Equian, a third-party collection agency seeking restitution on behalf of the medical provider, UPMC, is not statutorily allowed to receive payment. Briefs were ordered on the issue of Equian’s eligibility and ____________________________________________

3 At the guilty plea hearing, the Commonwealth indicated that the victim needed surgery for a detached retina as a result of the assault. (See N.T. Plea Hearing, 3/12/18, at 16). At the subsequent restitution hearing, Appellant’s counsel asserted she had reviewed the relevant medical records and “there was no diagnosis of a detached retina that was caused by the criminal assault.” (Restitution Hearing, 4/13/18, at 3).

-2- J-S43036-20

argument took place on June 21, 2018. After argument, the court entered a restitution order in the amount of $5,383.88 payable to Equian, finding that payment to a collection agency designated by an entity entitled to receive restitution, achieves the legislative purposes of the statute: rehabilitation and punishment.

1 Additional restitution was ordered payable to the victim to replace the eyeglasses and to the Victim’s Compensation Fund for medical care[.]

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/6/18, at 2-3) (some capitalization and footnotes

omitted).

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, arguing: 1) the

Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the amount of

actual damages suffered by the victim; 2) the record did not establish a causal

connection between the crimes and the victim’s injury; and 3) Equian was not

entitled to restitution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(1). The court denied the

post-sentence motion, and Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On

August 29, 2019, this Court vacated Appellant’s sentence and remanded the

matter for resentencing. Citing Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766

(Pa.Super. 2018), we determined “the trial court erred as a matter of law by

failing to determine the amount of restitution at the original time of

sentencing[.]” Commonwealth v. Davis, No. 1048 WDA 2018, unpublished

memorandum at 4 (Pa.Super. filed August 29, 2019).

On November 13, 2019, the court resentenced Appellant to the same

aggregate term of three (3) years’ probation. The court also awarded

restitution, including $5,383.88 to Equian and $1,296.71 to the Victim’s

-3- J-S43036-20

Compensation Fund. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion on

November 22, 2019. Again, Appellant argued that Equian was not entitled to

restitution under Section 1106(c)(1), and the Commonwealth failed to

establish a causal connection between the assault and the victim’s injury. On

December 4, 2019, the court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on January 2, 2020. On January

7, 2020, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed her Rule

1925(b) statement on January 28, 2020.

Appellant now raises three issues for our review:

Was the trial court’s sentence illegal in ordering $5,383.88 in restitution to Equian, a debt collector, under the restitution statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, when Equian was not an entity listed under the aforementioned restitution statute?

Was the trial court’s sentence illegal because the record supports no causal connection between the ordered restitution for the injury complained of, a detached retina, and the simple assault to which [Appellant] pleaded guilty?

Was the trial court’s imposition of certain court costs on [Appellant] improper, given that the court costs were imposed without consideration of [Appellant’s] financial resources and ability to pay?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3).

In her first issue, Appellant challenges the court’s award of restitution

to Equian, a third-party debt collector. Appellant contends that the definition

of “victim” in the applicable version of Section 1106 does not include corporate

-4- J-S43036-20

entities like Equian.4 In light of the relevant statutory language, Appellant

insists Equian is not entitled to restitution under Section 1106. Appellant

concludes that this Court must vacate that portion of the judgment of

sentence. We agree.

The relevant scope and standard of review are as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI