J-S28007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RYAN JAMES HARDWICK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1225 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 15, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-05-CR-0000485-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: December 28, 2023

Ryan James Hardwick appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

on September 15, 2022, challenging the $15,000 fine imposed. Hardwick 

specifically contends that there is no evidence of record to support his ability 

to pay the fine. After careful consideration, we are constrained to agree and 

therefore vacate the fine.

In 2016, Hardwick pled guilty to first-degree murder and related 

offenses. Hardwick was sentenced to sixty years to life imprisonment and a 

$25,000 fine on the first-degree murder conviction. On direct appeal, a panel 

of this Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for Hardwick 

to be resentenced pursuant to case law regarding de facto life without parole 

sentences imposed on juvenile homicide offenders. See Commonwealth v. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28007-23

- 2 -

Hardwick, 1719 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed April 3, 2018) (unpublished 

memorandum). Hardwick was resentenced to a term of forty years to life 

imprisonment and a $25,000 fine on the first-degree murder conviction. 

On appeal from the re-sentencing, a panel of this Court affirmed the 

sentence as to the term of imprisonment but vacated the fine, finding that the 

trial court did not properly consider Hardwick’s ability to pay. See 

Commonwealth v. Hardwick, 399 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. filed June 3, 2022) 

(unpublished memorandum). The panel specifically found that there was “no 

record evidence of Hardwick’s ability to pay” the fine. Id. at *4 (emphasis 

omitted). 

On remand, the trial court held a hearing on Hardwick’s ability to pay. 

At the beginning of the hearing, the Commonwealth declined to present any 

testimony. See N.T., Resentencing, 9/9/2022, at 4. The Commonwealth did 

object to defense counsel’s suggestion that the fine be set at $1,000. See id.

at 6. The Commonwealth then declined to present any evidence other than a 

statement from the victim’s mother. See id. at 6-7.1 At the close of the 

____________________________________________

1 Later in the hearing, after resting, the Commonwealth sought to enter an 

exhibit that contained the probation office’s records regarding payments 

Hardwick had made towards the balance of the fine. See N.T., Resentencing, 

9/9/2022, at 18. The trial court did not explicitly admit the exhibit, and the 

exhibit is not part of the certified record on appeal. See Commonwealth v. 

Holston, 211 A.3d 1264, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc) (“The law of 

Pennsylvania is well settled that matters which are not of record cannot be 

considered on appeal.” (citation omitted)). Further, the trial court stated that 

it would not consider the information contained in the exhibit when assessing 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S28007-23

- 3 -

hearing, the trial court amended the fine to $15,000. See Order, 9/15/22 at 

¶ 1.1. Hardwick filed this timely appeal, in which he argues that the $15,000 

fine was illegal and an abuse of discretion. See Appellant’s Brief at 5.

We begin our analysis by reiterating that a prior panel of this Court 

found that the record contained no evidence of Hardwick’s ability to pay and 

therefore remanded the case to allow the Commonwealth an opportunity to 

supplement the record. As noted above, the Commonwealth declined to 

supplement the record on this issue until after it had already rested. And its 

sole attempt to supplement the record was not admitted into evidence at the 

hearing. Finally, we note that the Commonwealth has failed to support the 

fine imposed by failing to file a brief in this appeal. See Letter, 5/25/2023 

(noting that “the Commonwealth has elected not to file a responsive brief” 

and that “[t]he Commonwealth is satisfied to rely on the information that has 

been made part of the record in this case[.]”)

As the current record contains no new evidence of Hardwick’s ability to 

pay, we are constrained to conclude that there is still no evidence of record 

concerning Hardwick’s ability to pay the fine. See Commonwealth v. 

Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416, 420 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“[W]hen an appellate court 

has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, 

upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its previous 

ruling[.]”). While the trial court attempted to address the deficiency in the 

____________________________________________

Hardwick’s ability to pay since it was not clear the exhibit had any relevance 

to the issue. See N.T., Resentencing, 9/9/2022, at 19.
J-S28007-23

- 4 -

record by reducing the fine, that alone is insufficient to satisfy the requirement 

that the record must demonstrate Hardwick’s ability to pay the fine. See 

Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 924 A.2d 1215, 1227-28 (Pa. Super. 2007)

(remanding for hearing on $100 fine), affirmed on other grounds, 985 A.2d 

847 (Pa. 2009), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Allshouse v. 

Pennsylvania, 562 U.S. 1267 (2011). We therefore vacate the fine imposed. 

As this was the only issue on appeal, all other aspects of the judgment of 

sentence remain intact.

Fine vacated. Jurisdiction relinquished.

 12/28/2023
J-S28007-23

- 5 -