J-S05036-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

JORDAN CROCKETT 

 Appellant No. 1159 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order entered July 3, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Criminal Division at No: CP-25-CR-0000551-2014 

BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and STABILE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 28, 2015 

 Appellant Jordan Crockett appeals from the July 3, 2014 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Erie County (trial court),1 granting the 

Commonwealth’s request for modification of restitution imposed from 

$7,000.00 to $5,180.00. Upon review, we vacate the order and remand the 

matter to the trial court for resentencing. 

 The facts and procedural history underlying this case are uncontested. 

Briefly, on April 24, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to simple assault by mutual 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Appellant also appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the trial 

court on June 17, 2014. The issues on this appeal, however, relate only to 

the trial court’s July 3, 2014 order modifying the amount of restitution 

imposed. Accordingly, we have changed the caption to reflect only the July 

3, 2014 order. 
J-S05036-15 

- 2 - 

consent2 in connection with punching a 17-year-old victim in the mouth, 

thereby “knocking [out] one of the victim’s teeth and requiring surgery to 

remove additional teeth.” N.T. Plea, 4/24/14, at 9. On June 17, 2014, the 

trial court sentenced Appellant to five to twelve months’ imprisonment and 

ordered restitution in the amount of $7,000.00, “subject to verification” by 

the Commonwealth within ten days.3 N.T. Sentencing, 6/17/14, at 14-17. 

Also, at the time of sentencing, Appellant’s counsel requested a restitution 

hearing, which the trial court denied. See id. at 16-17. 

By a letter dated July 3, 2014, the Commonwealth provided 

documentation in support of the restitution to be imposed. Specifically, the 

Commonwealth provided an invoice from Oral Surgery of Erie (OSE) for a 

“limited oral evaluation” in the amount of $80.00, and treatment plan from 

OSE for a list of dental procedures for $5,100.00. See Commonwealth’s 

Letter, 7/3/14. The OSE treatment plan also contained the following 

language: “Please note this is only an estimate of fees. Today’s visit is 

a separate procedure and charge, NOT INCLUDED with this treatment 

plan.” Id. (emphasis in original). Based on the Commonwealth’s letter, the 

____________________________________________ 

2

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). 

3

 Victim’s father submitted a claim form indicating that “insurance will not 

cover the cost of $7,000.00 for perminent [sic] teeth put in by dentist.” 

Restitution Claim Form, 5/12/13. 
J-S05036-15 

- 3 - 

trial court on the same day issued an order, modifying the amount of 

restitution from $7,000.00 to $5,180.00. See Trial Court Order, 7/3/14. 

By a letter dated July 3, 2014, Appellant lodged another request with 

the trial court to hold a restitution hearing. In support of his request, 

Appellant argued, inter alia: 

the documentation provided by the Commonwealth is lacking in 

that: 

• It clearly states that the figure requested is only an 

“estimate;” 

• It appears that the surgery has not occurred yet and 

that the fees may depart from the estimate (upwardly 

or downwardly)[.] 

Appellant’s Letter, 7/3/14. Appellant, alternatively, asked the trial court to 

require the Commonwealth to provide additional documentation in the event 

the trial court declined to hold a restitution hearing. See id. By a letter 

dated the same day, the trial court denied Appellant’s request for a 

restitution hearing. Trial Court Letter, 7/7/14. On July 17, 2014, Appellant 

timely appealed to this Court. Following Appellant’s filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, the trial court issued a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. 

 On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review, namely, 

“[w]hether the trial court erred when it failed to state its reasons and 

conclusions as a matter of record for speculative sum contained in the 
J-S05036-15 

- 4 - 

restitution order.”4 Appellant’s Brief at 4. Appellant essentially challenges 

the modified restitution amount of $5,180.00 imposed by the trial court on 

the theory that the court erred in failing to meet the requirements of 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(3).5 We agree. 

The Crimes Code provides restitution may be altered or amended at 

any time provided that the court gives its reasons and conclusions for 

any change on the record.

6

 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(3); see also 

Commonwealth v. Dietrich, 970 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa. 2009) (noting “a 

sentencing court may modify restitution orders at any time if the court 

states its reasons as a matter of record”). The Supreme Court in Dietrich

applied Section 1106(c)(3) and concluded that the trial court erred in failing 

to give its reasons for modification of restitution on the record. Id. As a 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Because such an argument relates to the legality of sentence, our standard 

of review is be de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See 

Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813, 817 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

5

 Appellant does not challenge the amount of restitution ordered at 

sentencing in this appeal. 

6

 Section 1106(C), relating to mandatory restitution, provides in pertinent 

part: 

(3) The court may, at any time or upon the recommendation of 

the district attorney that is based on information received from 

the victim . . . 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.A. § 1106(c)(3). 
J-S05036-15 

- 5 - 

result, the Court vacated the restitution order and remanded the matter to 

the trial court for resentencing. Id. 

Instantly, the record plainly reveals the trial court, like the trial court 

in Dietrich, failed to provide on the record its reasons for modifying the 

amount of restitution imposed from $7,000.00 to $5,180.00. Accordingly, 

under Dietrich, we must vacate the July 3, 2014 order and remand this 

case to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court is 

directed to provide its reasons for modification on the record. 

Appellant also argues the modified amount of restitution is speculative 

and not supported by the record. As directed, the Commonwealth provided 

an evaluation invoice ($80.00) and an estimate for a treatment plan by OSE 

($5,100.00) for a total of $5,180.00 to the trial court after sentencing.7 

Even though we vacate the trial court’s modified restitution order and 

remand for resentencing, we shall address this last contention by Appellant, 

as this argument may affect the remand proceedings. 

Since restitution is a sentence, the amount ordered must be supported 

by the record and may not be speculative or excessive. Commonwealth v. 

Dohner, 725 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super. 1999). The Commonwealth’s 

____________________________________________ 

7

 A sentencing court may rely upon hearsay so long as the evidence 

possesses sufficient indicia of reliability. See Commonwealth v. Medley, 

725 A.2d 1225, 1230 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 749 A.2d 468 (Pa. 

2000). 
J-S05036-15 

- 6 - 

documentation attached to the trial court’s order in support of modified 

restitution, if entered into the record, together with the trial court’s reasons 

for modification, could suffice to support an order for modified restitution.8 

All that is required is that the record support the restitution ordered. Here, 

we observe because this case involves ongoing medical expenses with 

respect to the victim’s dental repairs, it was impossible for the trial court to 

determine accurately the full restitution amount at sentencing. In fact, even 

though a more accurate amount appeared to be capable of determination 

after sentencing, it appeared the trial court still only was presented with an 

estimate of the full cost for restitution to cover the victim’s dental repairs. 

This is not always avoidable. As noted by our Supreme Court in Dietrich, 

there is tension between having finality in restitution at sentencing and to 

have a sentence imposed within 90 days as required under our Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Dietrich, 970 A.2d at 1134. Nonetheless, our Rules of 

Criminal Procedure allow a trial court to order restitution at sentencing under 

these constraints, so long as the trial court states the basis for determining 

____________________________________________ 

8

 An allegation that the restitution order is unsupported by the record is a 

challenge to the legality, rather than to the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence. Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Pa. 

Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Redman, 864 A.2d 566, 569 (Pa. 

Super. 2004)). As we noted earlier, the determination as to whether the 

trial court imposed an illegal sentence is a question of law and as such, our 

standard of review is plenary. Id.
J-S05036-15 

- 7 - 

the amount at sentencing.9 Id. The ability to order restitution in this 

manner works in tandem with 1106(c)(3) which provides sentencing courts 

broad authority to amend restitution orders at any time, if it reasons for 

doing so are a matter of record. Id. 

In this case, we do not deem reliance by the trial court upon the most 

current estimate for dental repairs to modify restitution to be speculative. 

This best estimate may very well provide an appropriate basis for ordering 

modified restitution. Upon remand, it will be up to the trial court to place on 

the record the nature of the evidence relied upon to modify restitution and 

its reasons for doing so. 

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judge Donohue joins the memorandum. 

Judge Shogan concurs in the result. 

____________________________________________ 

9

 We recognize this observation in Dietrich was with regard to information 

known at the time of sentencing and not when a restitution order is sought 

to be modified. We discern no reason why this same logic cannot be applied 

to modification proceedings when the amount of restitution can be further 

refined, especially when Section 1106(c)(3) permits a court to modify 

restitution at any time. 
J-S05036-15 

- 8 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 5/28/2015