Com. v. Santana, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Santana, J.

DecidedSeptember 3, 2024

Docket1517 MDA 2023

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Santana, J. (Com. v. Santana, J.) 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. Santana, J., (Pa. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A15013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSHUA XAVIER SANTANA : : Appellant : No. 1517 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 5, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-19-CR-0000163-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 03, 2024

Appellant, Joshua Xavier Santana, appeals from the October 5, 2023

judgment of sentence entered in the Columbia County Court of Common Pleas

following his guilty plea to Robbery and Conspiracy to Commit Theft by

Unlawful Taking.1 Appellant asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal

sentence because it ordered him to pay restitution for crimes other than those

to which he pled guilty. After careful review, we vacate and remand for

resentencing.

A.

On June 11, 2022, Appellant, along with three other men, robbed J.V.,

a juvenile, of his wallet and cell phone at gunpoint. As a result, the

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iv) and 903(a), respectively. J-A15013-24

Commonwealth charged Appellant with Robbery and Conspiracy. On

September 11, 2023, Appellant entered a guilty plea to the above charges.

Per the plea agreement, the Commonwealth amended the Robbery charge

from a first-degree felony to a second-degree felony.2 When presenting the

factual basis for the guilty plea, the Commonwealth stated that Appellant

conspired with the other men to “tak[e] a wallet and cell phone from a juvenile

victim.” N.T. Guilty Plea, 9/11/23, at 6. The Commonwealth did not mention

any other victims or discuss restitution.

Appellant’s co-defendants were separately charged with the robbery of

victims R.M. and M.C., which occurred on the same night as the robbery of

J.V. Appellant was not charged with those robberies. Nonetheless, Appellant’s

presentence investigation report indicated that he was liable for $5,647.42 in

restitution—$260.00 to J.V. and the remainder to R.M. and M.C.

Appellant proceeded to sentencing on October 5, 2023. At sentencing,

Appellant challenged the amount of restitution assessed in the pre-sentence

investigation report. He argued that because he pled guilty only to the robbery

of J.V. and he had not been charged for the robbery of R.M. and M.C., he

should only be liable for restitution in the amount of $260.00.

The Commonwealth argued that Appellant was present for the robbery

of R.M. and M.C., which was part of a “spree” that also included the robbery

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).

-2- J-A15013-24

of J.V.3 N.T. Sentencing, 10/5/23, at 9. It explained that Appellant was not

charged in the robbery of R.M. and M.C. because he had not been identified

until “well after” the three co-defendants had been identified, and the

Commonwealth and Appellant’s counsel had already reached a plea

agreement in this case.

The court determined that Appellant was liable for the restitution owed

to R.M. and M.C., in addition to J.V. The court gave Appellant the opportunity

to withdraw his guilty plea and permitted his counsel to discuss withdrawing

the plea with him, but they declined and proceeded to sentencing. The court

sentenced Appellant to 11 to 22 months’ incarceration with credit for time

served for Robbery, and a consecutive 12 months’ probation for Conspiracy.

The court also imposed a fine, community service, and $5,647.42 of

restitution, jointly and severally with the three co-defendants.

B.

This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court commit an error of law and issue an illegal sentence by ordering [Appellant] to pay restitution for crimes which he was not convicted of?

Appellant’s Br. at 3.

3 At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth did not put forth any evidence

of Appellant’s involvement or presence in the robberies of R.M. and M.C., and Appellant did not admit to his involvement.

-3- J-A15013-24

C.

Appellant maintains that the court’s imposition of $5,647.42 in

restitution is unsupported by the record. Appellant’s Br. at 7. A claim that

the imposition of restitution is unsupported by the record challenges the

legality of a defendant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 220 A.3d 582,

585 (Pa. Super. 2019). Our standard of review for a claim challenging the

legality of a sentence is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Id.

The imposition of restitution is governed by 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, which

provides in relevant part:

Upon conviction for any crime wherein . . . property . . . has been stolen, converted or otherwise unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially decreased as a direct result of the crime; or [wherein] the victim . . . suffered personal injury directly resulting from the crime, the offender shall be sentenced to make restitution in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor.

18 Pa.C.S § 1106(a). “The amount of a restitution order is limited by the loss

or damages sustained as a direct result of [the] defendant’s criminal

conduct and by the amount supported by the record.” Commonwealth v.

Dohner, 725 A.2d 822, 824 (Pa. Super. 1999) (emphasis added). The

Commonwealth bears the burden of proving entitlement to restitution.

Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2010). The

trial court “must ensure that the record contains the factual basis for the

appropriate amount of restitution.” Id.

Finally, a defendant “is criminally responsible for the acts of his co-

conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth

-4- J-A15013-24

v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc) (citation

omitted).

*

Here, Appellant contends that the record does not demonstrate that he

is liable for any restitution to be paid to R.M. and M.C. Appellant’s Br. at 10.

Specifically, he argues that both charges to which he pled guilty were “part of

the same criminal episode [of] committing both a single robbery and theft

from one victim, ‘J.V.’” He emphasizes that the Commonwealth did not charge

him with Robbery or Conspiracy with respect to R.M. and M.C. Id. at 8-9

(citing Criminal Complaint; Bill of Information). Appellant further notes that

there “was never any plea agreement that [he] would pay those additional

sums[,]” and that nothing in his plea agreement pertained to the robbery of

R.M. and M.C. Id. at 9, n.2.

In its brief, the Commonwealth describes the robberies as a “series of

incidents” that occurred on the same night and contends that Appellant is

liable for the robbery of R.M. and M.C. because he was charged with, and pled

guilty to, Conspiracy. Commonwealth’s Br. at 2-3. In support, the

Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. Mathis, in which the

Commonwealth charged Mathis and two co-defendants with assault and

related offenses of four victims following a fight.

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