J-S22022-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN JAMES SUCCI :
:
Appellant : No. 229 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 3, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0002732-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2023
John James Succi (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered in
the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his “Motion to Vacate
Restitution/Sentencing,” which the trial court treated as an untimely petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 Appellant insists the
trial court erred and violated his due process rights when it ordered restitution
five months after sentencing, without conducting a hearing. Although we
conclude the trial court improperly construed Appellant’s motion to be an
untimely PCRA petition, we, nevertheless, determine Appellant is entitled to
no relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S22022-22
In a prior appeal, a panel of this Court summarized the facts leading to
the underlying convictions follows:
Appellant was a residential and commercial contractor.
Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2013, Appellant
entered into thirteen contracts to build, remodel, or construct
additions on certain properties located in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and Margate,
New Jersey. In each instance, Appellant either failed to finish the
work, failed to obtain necessary permits, failed to perform under
the contract, claimed he was insured when he was not, or provided
fraudulent receipts. It was also typical for Appellant to quote a
price for a particular project and then increase the costs. If the
homeowner challenged Appellant’s work practices, he threatened
them with legal proceedings that would financially cripple the
homeowners. In at least two instances, Appellant placed
mechanic’s liens on homeowners’ properties.
Commonwealth v. Succi, 480 EDA 2015 (unpub. memo. at 1-2) (Pa. Super.
Jan. 5, 2017).2
In February of 2014, Appellant was charged at two dockets with multiple
counts of home improvement fraud, theft by deception, and deceptive
business practices, and one count of insurance fraud.3 The dockets were
____________________________________________
2 The January 5, 2017, decision remanded Appellant’s direct appeal to the trial
court and retained panel jurisdiction, after the notes of testimony from
Appellant’s jury trial were supplemented into the record. See Succi, 480 EDA
2015 (unpub. memo. at 6). The subsequent published opinion of this Court
affirming Appellant’s judgment of sentence includes a detailed summary of
the testimony presented at Appellant’s jury trial. See Commonwealth v.
Succi, 173 A.3d 269, 272-78 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal denied, 17 MAL 2018
(Pa. July 3, 2018).
3 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(2), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3922(a)(1), 4107(a)(2), and
4117(b)(4), respectively. Herein, Appellant has only appealed from his
sentence at trial docket CP-09-CR-0002732-2014, where the majority of the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S22022-22
consolidated for a jury trial, and on December 12, 2014, Appellant was
convicted of 12 counts each of deceptive business practices and theft by
deception, two counts of home improvement fraud, and one count of insurance
fraud. He was represented by Marc S. Stolee, Esquire.
Appellant proceeded to sentencing on January 16, 2015. At the
beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that the parties “had
an opportunity to conference this matter” and there were “a number of legal
issues that were raised[.]” N.T., 1/16/15, at 2. After discussing a correction
to the sentencing guidelines ranges, the following exchange took place:
THE COURT: All right. Now there was a second issue
regarding . . . restitution. I will start with [Attorney] Stolee. You
are challenging the calculation as done by the District Attorney?
[Attorney Stolee]: Yes, Your Honor. We believe that
restitution should be calculated as the dollar amount to complete
the project. Either the dollar amount should be the total contract
price or the amount to complete the project. Right now we don’t
have any evidence showing how much it had actually cost to
complete, but was anticipated. We know what they paid. We
don’t know what was actually – what the cost would have been to
complete it as originally contracted by [Appellant].
I believe the Commonwealth is trying to calculate it as the
cost – the amount that’s paid, plus the amount that they – the
additional amount that was spent less the original contract, and I
believe that . . . they can overinflate the amount of restitution
required to be paid by [Appellant].
____________________________________________
charges were filed. See Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 1/27/22. At trial docket
CP-09-CR-0005704-2014, Appellant was convicted of one count each of
deceptive business practices, theft by deception, and insurance fraud.
Because Appellant did not file a notice of appeal listing this docket number,
this sentence, and restitution order, are not before us.
-3-
J-S22022-22
THE COURT: All right. [Commonwealth’s attorney].
[Commonwealth’s attorney]: Judge, I have broken down
the restitution on a form, which I will mark. The way that the
restitution was calculated by the Commonwealth is how much the
victims paid in excess either to [Appellant] and/or another
contractor in excess of what the original contract with [Appellant]
was for the work provided, and that’s how I calculated the
restitution amounts.
THE COURT: All right. I rule in favor of the
Commonwealth. I believe that part of the fraudulent conduct
engaged by [Appellant] was that [he] underbid, knowingly gave
these homeowners a cost that he knew the project could not be
completed by. So to take the contract as he formed it would make
part of the fraud part of a restitution calculation and that I will not
do, and so I will follow the calculation as completed by the District
Attorney’s Office. I believe that is the most complete way of
calculating actual out-of-pocket loss of the individuals involved in
this case. . . .
Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). Attorney Stolee did not object further to the
court’s ruling, or request the Commonwealth provide more support for its
restitution calculations.
The sentencing hearing proceeded with victim impact testimony
presented by the Commonwealth, and character evidence presented by
Appellant. Attorney Stolee requested the trial court consider the fact that
Appellant was a “first-time offender” and “lost everything” as a result of the
charges. N.T. at 53. Counsel further acknowledged: “[Appellant] is aware of
the restitution . . . and he will at some point need to address that when he
gets out of jail, and we would like that to be as soon as possible.” Id. at 54.
Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of
15 to 30 years’ imprisonment, imposing consecutive sentences with respect
to each victim. After announcing the sentence for each criminal conviction,
-4-
J-S22022-22
the court imposed restitution, as requested by the Commonwealth. See N.T.
at 73. The court admitted Commonwealth’s Sentencing Exhibits 4, 5, and 6,
which listed each victim’s name and the amount of restitution requested. See
id. at Exhibits CS-4, CS-5, CS-6.4 The trial court then made the following
comments:
THE COURT: All right. Based on the objection being
preserved to the calculation of the restitution, I ruled in favor of
the District Attorney’s Office.
I would also note for the record that the sentence I imposed
and my ruling as to restitution, I find the restitution is a non-issue
in this case as far as I am concerned. It is very clear based on
[Appellant’s] bankruptcy, his removal and dissipation of assets,
that restitution is not a real possibility to these people. I wish I
could say it was, but I do not believe restitution is a possibility.
If I thought there was any chance of attempting to correct
the damage that was done by having [Appellant] pay restitution,
I would have entered a different sentence, but I don’t believe that
that will ever occur and you will never see a dime of the money
that he has taken from you. . . .
N.T. at 73-74.
As the trial court was informing Appellant of his post-sentence and direct
appeal rights, Attorney Stolee asked if Appellant was eligible for the
Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program.5 See N.T. at 75. The
____________________________________________
4Exhibits CS-4 and CS-5 detail the breakdown of restitution for the victims at
Docket CP-09-CR-0002732-2014, which totaled $1,578,927.98. See Exhibits
CS-4 and CS-5. Exhibit CS-6 requested restitution in the amount of
$58,225.00 for the victim at Docket CP-09-CR-0005704-2014. See Exhibit
CS-6. Thus, the total amount of restitution was $1,637,152.98.
5 See 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501-4512.
-5-
J-S22022-22
Commonwealth’s attorney responded, “I think he might be,” but indicted they
did not “know what the minimum” was. Id. at 75-76. The court directed the
Commonwealth to obtain that information, and stated it would “make that
part of the sentencing sheet.” Id. at 76. Thereafter, on May 20, 2015, the
trial court entered an order stating that “upon agreement” of the parties,
Appellant was an eligible offender pursuant to the RRRI program; the order
also listed the appropriate RRRI minimum sentence for each offense. See
Order, 5/20/15.
Meanwhile, Appellant filed a direct appeal to this Court on February 17,
2015. He argued: (1) several convictions were barred by the statute of
limitations; (2) jurisdiction and venue in the Bucks County Court of Common
Pleas was improper; and (3) the “life sentence” imposed by the trial court was
unconstitutional and illegal.6 See Succi, 173 A.3d at 279. As noted supra,
this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied allocatur review on July 13, 2018. See Succi, 17 MAL 2018.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a counseled, timely PCRA petition, asserting
trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a motion to dismiss or transfer
the cases arising in Philadelphia and New Jersey, and failing to file a post-
sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See
Appellant’s Petition for Relief Under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 7/2/19, at
____________________________________________
6 Appellant was 59 years old at the time of the sentencing hearing, and
suffered from several medical conditions. See N.T. at 52.
-6-
J-S22022-22
4. The court denied the petition without a hearing on April 14, 2020, and
following a nunc pro tunc appeal, this Court affirmed the order denying relief.
See Commonwealth v. Succi, 1935 & 1936 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Jun. 4,
2021). Appellant petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allocatur
review on June 11, 2021.
In the meantime, on June 9, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a motion to
modify restitution in the trial court. It explained that Appellant was directed
to pay $41,950.00 to victim Erika Baratz, but she had died in February of
2020. See Commonwealth’s Motion to Modify Restitution, 6/9/21, at 1-2
(unpaginated). Therefore, the Commonwealth requested that the court
amend the restitution order to reflect that Baratz’s restitution was to be paid
to her daughter, Annette Goldstein. See id. at 2 (unpaginated). Appellant
filed a pro se answer in opposition to the Commonwealth’s motion, arguing
the trial court did not impose restitution at the time of his sentencing, but
rather, without conducting a hearing, modified the sentence five months later
to add restitution. See Appellant’s Answer in Opposition to Modify Restitution,
7/14/21, at 2 (unpaginated). On July 21, 2021, the trial court granted the
Commonwealth’s motion to amend the restitution order. See Order, 7/21/21.
The court noted: “18 [Pa.C.S.] § 1106 does not require a hearing to amend
-7-
J-S22022-22
the order of restitution in this manner. Commonwealth v. Biauce, 162 A.3d
1133, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2017).”7 Id.
Thereafter, on September 3, 2021, while his petition for allowance of
appeal from the order denying his first PCRA petition was pending in the
Supreme Court, Appellant filed the underlying pro se motion to vacate his
restitution/sentencing in the trial court. See Appellant’s Motion to Vacate
Restitution/Sentencing Pursuant to 1106-C-2, 9/3/21. Relying on the trial
court’s comments at sentencing that it found restitution to be “a non-issue in
this case,” Appellant insisted that the court did not impose restitution at the
time of his sentencing hearing as required by 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106. Id. at 1-2.
Rather, he maintained the court modified the sentence five months later, on
May 20, 2015, to include restitution without conducting a hearing. See id. at
2. Accordingly, Appellant argued the restitution order was “ipso facto illegal”
pursuant to Section 1106. Id. at 4.
The Commonwealth filed an answer, asserting that the restitution
amounts for each victim “were ordered” at the time of sentencing, and the
amended order entered on May 20, 2015, only specified the RRRI minimum
sentences. See Commonwealth’s Answer to Appellant’s Motion to Vacate
Restitution/Sentencing, 11/1/21, at 2 (unpaginated). Appellant filed a Reply
in response to the Commonwealth’s answer. In the meantime, on December
____________________________________________
7 As we will discuss infra, Section 1106 of the Crimes Code outlines the
parameters and requirements for an order of restitution for injuries to a person
or property. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106.
-8-
J-S22022-22
30, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for
allowance of appeal from his first PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v.
Succi, 344 & 345 MAL 2021 (Pa. Nov. 30, 2021).
On January 3, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant
relief. The court explained that it considered Appellant’s motion to be a
second, untimely PCRA petition, and it had no jurisdiction to address
Appellant’s claim. See Order, 1/3/21. This timely appeal follows.8
Preliminarily, we note that on March 16, 2022, this Court issued
Appellant a rule to show cause why his present PCRA petition should not be
quashed as premature because it was filed while the denial of his prior petition
was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Show Cause Order,
3/16/22, citing Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000)
(petitioner is precluded from filing subsequent PCRA petition until review of
prior petition is resolved “by the highest state court in which review is sought,
or upon expiration of the time for seeking such review”). Appellant filed a
response, essentially arguing the trial court permitted him to proceed. See
Appellant’s Response, 3/25/22, at 3-4. We discharged the show cause order
on April 4, 2022, but stated that the issue would be referred to the merits
panel.
____________________________________________
8 Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal with his notice of appeal.
-9-
J-S22022-22
In its brief, the Commonwealth suggests that the trial court erred when
it treated Appellant’s motion as a PCRA petition. See Commonwealth’s Brief
at 17-19. However, it maintains the order denying relief was, nevertheless,
proper. Id. at 20-22. We agree.
Restitution is governed by Section 1106 of the Crimes Code. Section
1106(c)(1) mandates that a trial court “shall order full restitution [r]egardless
of the current financial resources of the defendant, so as to provide the victim
with the fullest compensation for the loss.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(1)(i). The
statute further requires that the court “specify the amount and method of
restitution” at the time of sentencing. 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(2). Relevant
herein, Section 1106(c)(3) provides:
The court may, at any time . . . alter or amend any order of
restitution made pursuant to paragraph (2), provided, however,
that the court states its reasons and conclusions as a matter of
record for any change or amendment to any previous order.
18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(3) (emphasis added).
Relying on the language of Section 1106(c)(3), this Court has held that
a defendant may seek “a modification or amendment of [a] restitution order
at any time directly from the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50
A.3d 769, 772 (Pa. Super. 2012). Moreover, because the relief is statutorily
based on Section 1106, a defendant is not required to seek relief pursuant to
the PCRA, and, accordingly, is not constrained by the PCRA’s time for filing
requirements. See id., citing Commonwealth v. Mitsdarfer, 837 A.2d 1203
- 10 -
J-S22022-22
(Pa. Super. 2003). Thus, we conclude the trial court erred when it construed
Appellant’s motion to be an untimely PCRA petition.
Nevertheless, as the Commonwealth emphasizes in its brief, we may
affirm the decision of a trial court on any basis if the ruling is correct. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 19; see also Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d
708, 727 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc). Because we conclude Appellant is
entitled to no relief, we affirm the order on appeal.
The crux of Appellant’s claim is that the trial court did not impose
restitution at the time of his sentencing as required by Section 1106(c)(2).
See Appellant’s Brief at 12-13. Rather, Appellant maintains the trial court
added an “overblown, outrageous amount of restitution” five months later,
without scheduling a hearing or even informing him that it did so. See id. at
13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant claims that he was first notified of the
restitution order seven years later when the Commonwealth filed its motion
to modify restitution in June of 2021. See id. Thus, he argues he was
deprived of due process and the opportunity to “bring in his own expert to
assess whether the costs should be less.” Id. at 14, 17 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant relies primarily on the trial court’s statement at his sentencing
hearing that it imposed the lengthy prison sentence because it believed
restitution was a “non[-]issue” and “not a [r]eal possibility.” Id. at 20, citing
N.T. at 74. He insists the restitution amounts were never “summarized at the
time of [s]entencing,” and, in fact, the court “unequivocally [r]uled that
- 11 -
J-S22022-22
restitution was not a condition of the sentence imposed[.]” Appellant’s Brief
at 38-39.
Appellant’s argument is based on a misapprehension of the trial court’s
comments at his sentencing hearing. After announcing the prison terms
imposed for the crimes against each victim, the trial court admitted the
Commonwealth’s sentencing exhibits, which detailed the restitution requested
for each victim. See N.T. at 73. The court stated: “Based on the objection
being preserved to the calculation of the restitution, I ruled in favor of the
[Commonwealth].” Id. See also id. at 3-5. As Attorney Stolee expressed
during the hearing, Appellant was “aware of the restitution, [and that] he will
at some point need to address that when he gets out of jail[.]” Id. at 54. The
court’s subsequent comments, upon which Appellant relies, simply reflected
the court’s doubt that Appellant will ever be in a position to pay restitution to
the victims. See id. at 74. The court noted that if it believed Appellant could
repay the victims, it “would have entered a different sentence[,]” presumably
with a shorter prison term. See id. Therefore, Appellant’s claim that the
court did not impose restitution at the time of his sentencing hearing is simply
incorrect.
Moreover, the May 20, 2015, order — which Appellant claims the court,
belatedly and without conducting a hearing, added restitution to his sentence
— makes no mention of any restitution amounts. Rather, that order outlines
the RRRI minimum sentences for each of Appellant’s prison terms. See Order,
5/20/15. Accordingly, Appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to
- 12 -
J-S22022-22
follow the dictates of Section 1106 when it imposed restitution in his case is
meritless.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2023
- 13 -