J - S54005 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KERRY ALLAN LAVERDE, ANDRE MICHAEL NESTOR, Appellants No. 1094 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 23 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 63 - CR - 0002433 - 2009 CP - 63 - CR - 0002437 - 2009 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KERRY ALLAN LAVERDE, ANDRE MICHAEL NESTOR, Appellants No. 1095 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 23 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 63 - CR - 0002433 - 2009 CP - 63 - CR - 0002437 - 2009 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016J - S54005 - 16

- 2 -

Appellants, Kerry Allan LaVerde and Andre Michael Nestor, each appeal from the trial court’s June 23, 2015 identical orders denying their “Motion for Release of Property,” in which Appellants sought return of $429,000 that was jointly o wned by them, and which had been seized following their arrests for theft - related offenses committed against Meadows Racetrack and Casino. 1 That money was later forfeited by LaVerde on January 3, 2011, in order to satisfy a sentence of restitution imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen property. After careful review, we affirm. Briefly, Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court should have granted their “Motion for Release of Property,” or at least conducted a hearing on th at motion, because LaVerde could not have “permissibly agree[d] to forfeit” money that was jointly owned by Nestor. They also contend that LaVerde’s sentence of restitution “is now and always was illegal[,]” and “Nestor’s [d]ue [p]rocess rights were viola ted when he was not ever provided notice and an opportunity to be heard and present his innocent owner defense to the forfeiture of the monies.” Appellants’ Brief at 9. We have reviewed the certified records, the briefs of the parties, and the applicabl e law. We have also examined the well - reasoned opinion by the Honorable John F. DiSalle of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington

____________________________________________ 1 This Court sua sponte consolidated LaVerde’s and Nestor’s appeals by per curiam order dated September 18, 2015.J - S54005 - 16

- 3 -

County. Therein, Judge DiSalle concisely sets forth the rather complex procedural history underlying this appeal. He then deftly addresses the issues raised by Appellants herein, discussing several, equally reasonable bases for denying Appellants’ “Motion for Release of Property.” See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 2/5/16, at 5 - 9 (concluding that the motion was “untimely as to a ll issues presented, there [were] no genuine issues of fact, and the issues are moot”). We find especially compelling Judge DiSalle’s conclusion that Appellants’ motion is untimely. See id. at 5 - 6, 7 - 9. Notably, Appellants offer no argument in their bri ef to this Court to challenge Judge DiSalle’s determination in this regard. Accordingly, Appellants’ have failed to demonstrate any error in Judge DiSalle’s decision denying their “Motion for Release of Property.” Therefore, we adopt Judge DiSalle’s opin ion as our own and affirm the court’s June 23, 2015 order for the reasons set forth therein.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/2016

## -- - - - ---- - - - - - - - -- ----- - -- - . I D efend ant s' Mo ti o n fo r R e le as e of app e ar s to have b ee n p res ente d on April I 0 , 2 0 1 5 , but w as n e v e r fli e d o r m a d e p art of the offi c ial re cord for re vie w by th e Sup e ri o r Court . L a V er d e an d N es t o r w ill here in aft er , wh e n b e in g re fere nc e d jointl y , b e r efe rre d to as "D efe nd ant s . " 3 L a Verd e docke t entry 7 ; N es t or docket entry 8 . D efe ndant s , along w ith a th ird co - consp i rat o r, were c h arged w ith d e liberat e l y ex ploi ting a i ncidents invo l ving the mi s use of video poker ma c hin es at th e Me a do w s R a cetra ck and C a s i no . 3 1 8 Pa C.S. § 7615; and Crimin al C ons p iracy u n der 1 8 Pa.C.S. § 903. The c h arg e s arose out of of Un l awfu l A c tiv ity u nder 18 Pa C .S . § 5 111 ; comput e r offe n ses under 1 8 Pa C .S . § 76 1 1 and 3921, 18 P a . C . S. § 3922, 18 Pa C . S . § 3924, 1 8 P a C . S. § 39 2 5; offenses on D ealing in Proce e ds D e fend ant s Kerry La Verde (here i nafter "L a Ve r de " ) and Andre N est or (hereinaft er "Nes t o r' T' w e r e arre s ted on Octob er 6, 2009 , o n n umerous Theft offenses u n der 18 Pa C.S . § Fac tu al and P r oce du ral H i s t ory mo tion was de n ied by the tri al court on June 23, 2 01 5. ca s e was do n e so w i tho ut au tho rity an d that the mo n ey s h ou l d b e r etu rn ed t o D e fendants. The OPINI O N O F C OURT : : '. ~ ~ --,:,

. - · v ., ; ":JC :-J ; · :. , N This m atter co m es before the Court upon Defendan ts ' d irect app e al fr om th~ : ~ tifal co~'s

- · · -.J , Order d ated Jun e 23, 2015, deny i ng D efe n d ants' Moti on fo r R ele a se of Prope rty, The m o tio n , date d April 10, 20 1 5 1 , asse rte d th at $4 2 9,94 5 s ei z ed by th e Commo n we alth and forfeite d i n th e 

### "Tl 

# --r

# rn 

# C J ..... O") 

### -.., r'l CD I U1 

### KERR Y A LL A N LA V E RD E,

Defendant AN DRE 

### MI C HA EL N E ST O R,

Defendant N o . 2 43 3- 2 00 9 2437-20 0 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . 

### C O MM ONWEAL T H OF P E NN S Y L VANIA, IN THE COUR T OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA CRJ MINA L DIVISI O N Circulated 08/16/2016 03:12 PM2 4 La V e rd e d o cke t en try 6 ; N e stor d ocke t e ntry 6. 5 Id
. 6 Se e L a V er de do cke t en try 2 2; Ne stor do cket e n try 24 . 1 1 8 P a .C . S . § 3925. 3 L a V erd e doc ke t en try 1 8 . 9 Nes tor docke t e ntry 2 2. N e stor w as bei n g c h ar ged with v i o l ati ons of fe d eral l aw b as ed o n s i milar a c tions in L as Veg a s, Neva d a, and the Un ite d S tate s A ttorn e y ' s O ffi ce requ este d that th e C omm o nw ealth's ch arges be withdr a w n s o th at N e s tor 's c on du c t i n thi s ca s e co ul d be u se d against hi m in any p ote nti al se n te nc i ng in h is fe de ral c a s e . thr o ug h s earch w arran ts i ssued in the case fro m all b ank a cc ou nt s , s afe ty de p o sit b oxes , and l ock i n hi s Order o f S e ntence, that La Verde would fo rfe i t (I ) all m o ni es s eiz e d ti tled in h is nam e A t th e time L a Ver de e nt e r e d hi s p lea, he and h i s co un s el agr e ed, and thus it wa s set forth States Attorn ey . 9 con s id eration of an a gr e em ent re a ched between the C ommon w e al th an d th e Office of the U ni ted p ro s e cu ti o n ag ain st N e st o r in the U nite d St at es Distric t Cou rt for the D is trict of Nevada and i n \ Co mmonweal th' s Moti o n for N o lle Pr osse o f Nest or 's c har ge s in c on s i deration of th e pen din g of ( 3 ) y e ar s o f p ro b ation and was o r d er ed t o p ay r es ti tution i n th e amo un t of $429,9 4 5.00 t o th e M ea dow s R a cetrack and C as i no. 8 T h e reaft e r, o n F ebru ary 11, 20 11 , the trial co u rt g r an ted the R ece i ving S to l en Prope rty", Misdem e anor s o f the Fir s t D e gre e , for wh ich h e re c e i v e d a sen t enc e O n Janu ary 3, 20 1 1, L a V e rde e ntered a neg o tiate d guilty p l ea t o thr e e c ou nt s of D efe n dant s ' sh ar e d r es idenc e . 6 $8,7 4 0 . 00 in c a s h and a 2 00 9 Ni s san Rogue ( VIN: JN8A S5 8 V X9 W4 5 0247) w e re s ei zed fr om $4 2 9 , 0 0 0 wa s s e iz ed fro m two b ank sa fe/ s tron g b ox es h eld jo i n tl y in De fe n dant s' nam e s, and for Defend an t s' vari ou s fin an cial ac cou nt s and for De fen d an t s ' res i de n ce . Ap p ro xi m at e ly After D e f end ant s were arr e st ed, th e P e n nsylv an ia S tate P o lice o b t ai ne d s earch w arran ts en tering a v ali d wa ge r. 4 T h e a ct o r s , ove r a fiftee n ( 15) day p eri od, each cas h e d in di ffere n t j ac kp ot s li ps at di ffe rent tim es , with the fr audulent jac k pot s ulti mat e ly to t ali ng $429 , 94 5. s scre e n c h ang e s t o force th e mach i ne to regis t er an illegitim ate j a ckpo t on th e scr e en with ou t e ve r p rog rammi ng err or i n a v id eo p o ker m achine , utili z in g a c o mpl ex seri es of butt on str oke s an d3 1 0 LaV e rde do cke t e ntry 1 8 . 1 1 La v erd e d oc ket e ntry 19 . 1 2 La Verde docke t entry 22 ; N e s t o r d ocke t entry 2 4 . 13 Id . 1 4 Id was sei z ed in the c a s e , and the Comm onwe al th ag r eed t o re l ease the N i ss an Rogue and th e entered on J anuary 28 , 20 1 5, whe r ei n Defe n dant s agre e d t o forfeit an a dd itional $ 10 , 164 th at reached a settl em e nt wi th th e A tt orn e y General's offic e on th at motio n , and a consent o rde r was h av e a Rul e i ss ued on th e Co mmon we alth to s how why th e De f e n dan t 's Pe ti ti o n s h ould not b e grant ed. 12 Th e Pe ti tion pu rpo rt ed l y sou ght th e re tu rn/re le ase o f $ 8,7 40. 0 0 i n ca s h an d a 2 0 09 Nis s an Rog u e ( V IN: JN8AS5 8V X9W45024 7 ) se i zed from Defendants ' r esidehc e . 13 Defe n dant s addi tion ally s ou g ht t o h ave the ir P NC B ank and C iti z ens Bank a c cou n ts unfro z en . 14 De fen dan t s O n Septe mbe r 24, 20 14 , De fen dant s fil ed a M otio n for R e l ease of Pro perty, see kin g to La Verde an d Nes t or we r e co mple t e l y c l os e d . comp l eted hi s sen t ence of p r o b ati on J an uary 3, 201 4 , an d at that time, all cases agai n s t bo th Nesto r ' s F e deral c h arges were ulti mat e l y dismi ss e d on Nove mb e r 2 5 , 20 I 3 . La V erde u n fr o zen and r epaid t o the v i ctim, w h ich the court gran t ed th e sam e d ay , d ir ecting that th e Penn s ylv ania S t at e P o l ice make the fun d s availab le t o th e Meadow s R ace track and Cas i n o . 11 F eb ruary 11 , 2 011 an d F il ed Feb ruary 1 4, 2011, re ques ti n g th at th e forf e it ed $42 9, 9 4 5 b e T h e Co mm on we alth fil ed a P etiti on t o U nfr eez e Asse ts for V i c ti m R e s ti tutio n, dated o r d i r ec t o r co llat eral ap peal w as fil ed o n b e h alf o f La Ve rde foll o win g his s e nt en ci ng . co n se nt an d agr e emen t w as or dere d as part of L a V erde ' s s e nt e nc i n g. N o p o st - se nt e n c ing m o tion froze n until fu rthe r Or d er of C o u rt . 1 0 No written forfe iture peti ti o n was fil e d a s the forfe itu re b y or d ere d by the lowe r co u rt th at all monies and property sei z e d s h all be forfe it ed and shall r emai n h ome ; and (3) th e 2009 Ni s san R o gue v e h ic l e ti tl ed i n h i s name. It was fu rther ag r ee d to an d boxes s p eci fi c ally i n c l udi n g those at Ci tiz e n's B ank an d P N C Banks; ( 2) cas h seized fro m h is4

ts L a Verd e do cke t en try 25 ; N es tor d ocket entry 28 . 1 6 As note d abo v e, it app e ar s th at thi s m oti o n w a s n eve r fil e d, and i s not part of th e o ffi c i al reco r d fo r re v i e w by the S u p e rio r Co urt. 1 7 La Ver de docke t entry 2 8; N es tor d ocke t entry 30 . 18 La Verde docke t e n try 29; Nes tor d ocke t e ntry 3 1. 1 9 La Verd e docket e n try 30; Ne s tor docket entry 32. 2 0 L a V e r d e do c ket entry 3 I ; N e sto r d oc ket en try 33 . 21 L a Verd e do cke t en try3 5; N es tor do cke t entry 37 . 22 La V erd e do c ke t e ntry 3 6 , 3 7 ; Ne s tor do cket en try 38 , 3 9 . 21 D efe n dan ts' th ir d "iss u e " appear s t o b e a s t ate m en t re garding the co nc urr ently fil ed P e tition fo r Exte ns i o n o f T ime , rath e r th an an as si g nment of err o r o r an i s s u e fo r co nsid erati on o n app eal. 2 . Th e T ri al Court err e d and/or abu s ed its di sc retion in den yi ng the D e fendant s / Appell ants ' [ s i c ] a hearing o n their Moti o n for Re turn o f Pro p erty. 1 . The T rial C ourt erre d and/or abu s ed it s di s cretion in den y ing th e Defe n dant/Appellants; Motion to fo r [ s ic] R e turn of Prop e rty. Th e Con c is e St at e m e nt li s ted the foll ow in g three ( 3 ) "iss ue s ? " : M atter s Compl ai ned of o n Ap peal l 925(b) on Augu s t 3 1, 2015, alon g w i th a Pe ti ti o n for E x t e n s i o n of Ti me of (30 ) days from r e c e i p t o f tran s cript s t o an s wer the C o u rt 's 1 9 2 5 ( b ) O r d e r . 22 Co n ci se St at em ent of the M att ers Complai ned o f o n Appe al within twen ty - o n e ( 2 1 ) d ay s o f the entry of that Order pursu ant to Pa. R. A. P. 19 2 5(b) . 21 Defend ant s file d a Concise S tat em e n t of On July 16, 2 015 , Defend ant s filed a timely appeal to th e Supe ri o r Co urt o f Pennsylvani a . 20 By o rder dat e d Augu s t 19, 2015, the tri al Court di r ect ed D e fe ndants t o fil e a Rel e as e of Prope rty . 1 9 th e Rule w a s held on Jun e 2 3 , 2015, after which the tri al court d eni e d D e fend an t s' Motion for Commonwealth fil e d its resp o nse to the Motion an d th e Rule o n Jun e 1 1, 2015 . 18 A h eari n g o n On May 18, 2015, th e tri al court i ss ued a Rule upon the Commo n w eal th t o sh o w c au se, if any , why a heari ng s ho u ld n o t b e g ranted on the motio n, retu rn ab le fo r J u n e 23, 2 015 . 1 7 T h e D e fend ants l ate r p rese nt e d a n e w M oti o n fo r Rele ase of Pr o perty d at ed A p ril l 0 , 2 015 , se e king return of the $429,925, which is the s ubje c t of th e inst an t app eal . " p er son al bank a ccounts back to Defendants. 155 24 D efen d ant s' C onc i se Statement of Matters Complained o fon Ap p eal , fil e d Augus t 3 1 , 20 l 5 . 25 See Pa. R. C ri m .P . 5 8 8 . timing o f s u c h a m o ti o n, that " a re turn m o ti o n i s tim e l y w hen 

### it i s filed b y an a c c u sed i n the tri al Pro c e dure, bu t th e Rule does n o t e xplicitl y prov id e an y g uid an ce a s t o ti ming or deadlines for the filin g of s u ch a m o ti o n . 25 Howeve r, the S upre me Co u rt o f P e nn sylvan i a has h e ld, re gardi ng th e A M o ti o n fo r Re turn of Property i s gov e rn ed by Rul e 5 88 o f th e Ru les of C ri mi n al th e m o ti o n. c o u rt ass erts th at thi s moti on i s untimely) th at the i ss u e i s m oo t , and that it did n o t err i n d en yi ng · T h e fir s t part of the m o ti o n i s D ef endant s' " M otion fo r R elease of Pro p e rty ." T he tri al i s s u e s ar e m o o t. Th e c o urt w ill a d dr ess th e two p art s of the m o tion separately below . · th e m oti on i s un tim e ly as to all i s s u e s p resen t ed, th ere are n o ge nui ne i ss u e s o f fac t , and th e R es ti tuti on . " Th e tri al co u rt ass ert s th at it di d no t err i n d e n y in g th e m o ti o n w i th o ut a he arin g , as Rel eas e o f Prop e rty, " an d the oth er bein g a "Moti o n to O pen Jud g m e nt / Strike Orde r o f D e fend an ts' moti o n c o ntai n s tw o sep arat e iss u es , one b e in g the a ctu al " M o ti o n for Opinion w a s g r an t e d . D e fe n d ant s fil e d n o s u p pl e ment s o r am e n dm e nt s to th e ir Co nci s e Stateme n t aft e r th e extensi o n l 9 25(b) s t atement. The offici al tran script of the proce e din gs w as filed on S e ptember 4, 2015 . e xtension , and g ave Defendants until ( 3 0) d ays aft er the receipt of the trans cri pt s to fil e the i r By Ord e r dated S e ptember 4, 2015, the tri al c o urt gran te d Defendants' afore menti on ed 3 . T he De fe nd an t s/Appellan t s ' [ s i c ] ar e filin g c on c urre n tly w i th the fil i ng o f th e w i thin l 925(b) Statement a Petition for E x ten s ion of Time · re lativ e t o the Court 's l 9 25( b) O r de r due to the fact that, althou g h thi s Court' s O rd e r w as d ocket ed o n A ug u s t 20, 2015 , the unde rs ign e d h e reby affirms th at s am e was no t re ce iv e d until August 28, 2 015 at 11 :00 a .m. Acc o rdingl y , th e D e f e nd ant 's [ si c] rese rve th e ri g h t to A m e n d the within l 9 2 5( b ) St at em e n t upon r eceiving the tr an s crip t s re qu es ted rel ativ e to the M o tion for Return of Property proceedin g that took plac e o n June 23, 2 015 . 24

### 6

26 Co m mon w ealt

h v. A ll en, 1 07 A.3 d 7 09, 7 1 6-717 (P a . 2 0!4) (ci tin g 4 2 Pa .C. S . § 5 505 ( p r ovi di ng th at a trial co urt re t ain s juris di c ti on t o m o d ify or re sci nd an o r d er wi th i n th i rty day s of i ts en try, i fn o appeal has b ee n t ake n) ). 27 Co mm o nwe a lt

h v. Ro mber

ger , 41 4 P a. 19 0, 1 96, 37 8 A. 2d 2 83, 286 ( 1 9 77). See als o Co mm o nwealt h v. S et zer, 258 Pa. Su p er 236, 392 A.2d 772 (1 9 78 ) ; Commonwea lt h v . O n e 1990 Dodge R am Va n , 75 1 A .2 d 1 2 35 (Pa. Cmm w . 20 00 ) . 2 8 Co m mo n we a l th v. A lien , s upr a . its m e ri t s, th e tri al cou rt as s e rt s th at th e issue pres en te d is m oo t , an d thu s i t did n o t e rr i n d e n y in g E ve n if the S up e ri or C ourt w er e t o d i sreg ar d the u n ti m e l i n es s o f th e m o ti on and co n s i d e r den y ing th e mo tion w i th ou t a he ari ng. p r es ent ati on of the i n s t ant mo tio n . T he mo tion i s th e r efo r e u n tim e ly , an d the co urt di d not e rr in d i v est ed jurisd iction o ve r bo th c ase s on o r ab o ut Mar c h 9, 2 011 - ove r fo u r 

### (4 ) years prio r to th e th e $42 9, 945 . As in 

### Commonw ea l t h v. A ll e n , th e tri al c ourt h er e h a d n o j urisdiction in the m atter afte r thirty (3 0) days fo llowing th e disp os ition of the c ase (s) . 28 A s such, th e tri al cou rt had La V erde or N es to r rai s e an y o f th e c laims mad e i n th e in s t an t m otio n, o r mo v e for th e re l eas e of comp l e tion o f La V erde' s s e n t enc e. A t n o tim e duri ng any of the p rior pro c ee din gs d i d e ith er dis missal o f Ne s to r's F ed e r al char g es , an d ove r on e (] ) y ear and thr e e ( 3 ) mo n ths after th e and th e g rant of n o ll e pr osse i n N e stor 's s t ate c as e , ne arly o n e an d a ha lf 

### (1 1/2 ) ye ar s a fter th e motio n wa s pr e s e n te d Ap ril 10, 20 1 5

- over four (4) y ears aft e r L a Ver de ' s j u dg m ent o f se nt en c e L a Ve r d e c o mp l eted his thre e y ear s ent e n c e of prob ation on or about J anu ary 3, 2 014 . T he in s t ant Defen dant N es tor's F ed eral ch ar ges wer e d is misse d on N ove mb er 25, 2 0 13, an d Defendan t J anu ary 3, 20 1 1 , D efe nd ant Ne s t o r's s t ate ch arges w e re n o Ile prossed on F eb ruary 11, 2011 , In th e pre se nt ca se , Defe n dant La Verde ent ere d hi s g uilty plea an d wa s s ent e n c ed on and will no t b e c o ns ider e d on a r ev ie w o f th at proc ee din g ! ,27 j uri s di c tion th at wh e r e an i ss ue i s cog niz abl e i n a give n pr ocee ding and i s n o t rai s ed it is w aived have als o hel d, regar di ng tim e lin es s o f r aisi ng an i ss u e , th at " [ i ]t i s a fund ame n t al do c trin e i n th is c ourt while th at court ret ai n s juri s d i cti o n, wh ic h i s up to thirty d ay s after di spos i tion . t''" Co u rt s7 29 Co mm o n wea lth v . Mo t

s i nge r, 6 8 A. 3d 2 01 3 ( Pa . Cmm w . 2 01 3) . Se e a lso C o mmo n w e a lth v. On e 1978 li nc o ln Ma rk V , 52 Pa. C mwlth . 353, 41 5 A.2d 1 00 0 (!98 0) . 3 

## ° Comm o n w e a lt

h v. 2 010 Bui c k E

n clav e , 9 9 A J d l 63 ( Pa . C mmw . 20 14 ) ( h o ld ing th at it e m s canno t b e forfe ite d absent a c on v i c ti on) . Res ti tuti o n . " Th e tri al c o u rt a sse rt s th at the mo tio n is un tim e l y , the i s s ue is w aiv e d , and th at th e T h e sec o nd p art o f th e mo tion i s D e f e nd an t s ' " M o ti o n t o Ope n Ju dg men t/ S trike O rd e r of in s t ant m o tio n . T here fo r e , th e c ou rt d i d no t err in de n y in g De fe nd ant s ' m o ti o n without a he arin g . mor e pro p e rly rai s e d in t ort a s a c ivil co nv e r si on clai m again s t La V e r de, rath e r th an h ere i n th e no t to L a V e r d e , and th at L a V e r de l a c k e d th e au th ority to fo rfe it the m o n ey ap p ear s to b e an i ssue p art o f h is ne go tiat e d ple a agreeme nt. N e st or ' s con te n ti o n that th e m o n ey b e lon g ed t o hi m and w a s con vi c t e d v i a a g uilty pl ea of se v era l c ri mes , and L a V er d e agreed t o for f eit th e m o n e y as L a V er d e was a jo i nt owne r of th e s afe d e p os it box fr om whi c h th e mon e y w as se iz ed, L a Ve rde fo rf e i te d a s h e was n eve r conv ict e d of an y c ri me in the matte r . H o w ever, th e fac t s re main th at c iti n g Co mmo n wea lth v . 2 01 0 Bui c k En clave, 30 c o n t e n d s th at th e mo n e y c oul d not b e l egall y N es to r cl aim s i n the motion that th e money bel o ng s to him, rath e r th an to La Verde , and moot. be e n i n th e p os se s sion o f the C omm o n w e a lth s in c e early i n 2011 , th e is s u e, as s tated ab o ve , is av ailable to the Me a dow s R ac etr a c k and Cas ino, the vi c tim, as re s titution . As the money ha s n o t on Febru ary 11, 2011, o rder e d t o b e r e lea se d to the P enns y lv ani a St ate P oli c e to be mad e the re s titution p o rtion o f his neg o ti ated p le a agr ee m e nt on January 3, 2011. The money wa s th e n, D e fen d ant s La Verd e and N es to r . L a v e rd e, a s one of the own er s a g re ed to forfeit th e $4 2 9, 9 45 as funds in q u e s tion wer e U . S. curren c y s ei z ed f rom b ank s a fe depo s it bo x e s owned jo i ntly b y long e r in po s ses s ion o f p ro p e rty, a petiti o n filed for th e return o f th at property is mo o t." 2 9 Th e The Commonwe a lth Court ha s repeat e dl y h e ld th at ' 'where the C ommonw e alth is no th e m o ti o n w ithout a he arin g.

### 8 31 Pa . R. Crim . P . 720(A)(l) . 32 P a . R . C ri m . P . 72 0 ( A )(3). 3 3 42 Pa .C .S . § 954 5(b ) ( I ) . 3 4 Se e Co m m o nw ea lt

h v . G uth r i e , 7 4 9 A .2 d 50 2 (Pa . Sup e r. 2000) ; Co mm o nw e alth v. Ho c ke nb erry, 455 Pa . Sup er. 6 2 6 , 6 89 A
. 2d 6 2 6 (19 9 7) . 3 5 Co mm on w ea lth v . Fahy, 55 8 Pa. 31 3 , 33 1 , 7 37 A. 2 d 2 1 4 , 22 3 (199 9) . 3 6 Id
. at 3 2 8 · 3 29. 37 42 P a . C . S. § 9 5 4 3 (a )(])( i) . H e re, as Ne s t or r ece i ve d no s e n t e n ce i n hi s case, th e c ou rt ass u m es th at th e l eg a lity of or paro l e fo r th e crim e [ . ]" 3 7 eligible for r e li e f, th at the petiti o ner b e "curre n tl y servin g a se n te nce o f imp ri s onmen t , p r o b atio n in n atu r e , and th at "a c o u rt h a s no au thority t o ext e nd filin g peri o d s e x cep t as th e s t atu t e permits.v' ? In a dd i ti on t o it s ti meline ss requi r em e nts , the P CRA st atu te r equi r es th at fo r o ne t o be revi ew within the PCRA, c laim s mu s t s till firs t s ati sf y th e P CRA 's ti me limit s or o n e o f th e ex c eption s the r eto. " 35 The Supr e me C ourt al s o h e l d th at th es e tim e li mit ati o n s ar e ju ris di cti o n al Supr e m e C o u rt o f Penn s y l vani a ha s held th at "[aj l thou g h l eg ality of se n tence i s al ways s ubj ec t t o d efe ndant s th e ben e fit of con si d e ring untimely motion s and appe al s as PCRA petiti on s when tho se ch all e n ges still fall w i thin the time li ne ss pr o visions of the P C RA s t atu t e . 3 4 Howe v er , th e judgment become s final. 33 When a legali ty of s e n t ence issue i s rai sed, courts have given petition challeng i n g the legality of s ente nce mu s t be filed with in one ( 1 ) ye ar of the date the thirty (30) day s of the imposition of s en t ence .i " and a Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") the imposition of sentenc e , 3 1 direct appeals from a judgment of sentence mu s t be filed within proceedings. Post

- se ntence motion s to mod i fy a sen t e nce must b e filed w i thin t en ( 1 0) days o f still apply . D i fferent tim e lines s re q uirem e nts exist for filings depending on the n ature of th e it s e l f waive subsequent challenges to the legality of a se n tenc e , timeliness requi r em e nt s for filing l e gali ty . While Def

e n d an t s ar e corr e ct i n the ir a s s e rtion th at e n teri n g a g u ilty ple a does not i n De fe ndant s assert that th e is s u e r e gard ing th e o r der o f re s ti tu ti o n i s a que stion of sen t ence court did n ot e rr i n d enyi ng th e mo tio n witho ut a h eari n g .

### - -- · -- · - -- -· · - - - - · ------ - - -- · ·~ --- - - · - 

### 9

38 See i d 

# dflJ(

/1

l 

## /i ~J

. J ohn'~&e:Judge D at e : 

### 'l 

# / f f / ~ BY THE C OURT: dismi ss e d, an d that the trial c o urt's order d at ed June 23, 2015 sh o u l d be a ffirmed . Ac c ording ly, th e tri al Court submi ts th at Def e ndant's appe al s houl d be qua s h e d and was p r esented . 3 8 serv in g any se n t e n c e, no r emedy u n de r the PCRA wa s availabl e to h i m at the ti me the moti on ( 1 ) year and thre e (3 ) month s prior to th e p r esentation of th i s motion . Becau s e he was no longe r exi s te d in this ca s e, as stat ed above , h e c omp l eted h i s se nt en ce on o r abo u t January 3 , 2014, one without a hearing . Ad d itionall y , eve n had La V e rde a s s erte d a r eas o n that such an ex c e p tio n court no l on ger has j u ri s di ctio n over the cas e, and th e c o u rt d id not err i n deny in g the mo tion n o exc e ption to th e timeli n e s s r e qu i reme n ts e xi s t s i n t.he case , the m otio n is un time l y, the trial e v en th e o n e ( I ) year all ow ed fo r a PC RA p etiti on. A s L a V er d e o ff ers no j u s tific ation , an d si nc e d ay s allow e d fo r a pos t- se nt ence m o tion , the thirty (3 0) d ays all o we d fo r a di r ec t ap peal, an d abo ut Fe bru ary 2 , 2 011. T h e i n s tan t petiti o n w as pr ese nte d Ap ril 10 , 2 0 1 5, w ell afte r th e ten ( 10 ) n o app eal fr o m th at jud g ment w as filed, La V e rde's judgm e nt of s ent e nce bec am e final o n o r m o tion was no t p re s ente d for m or e than four (4) ye ar s aft e r La V er d e's jud g m e nt of se nten ce. A s La Verde's s e nten c e is th at wh i ch i s bein g chall e ng ed . As s t ate d abo v e, h o w eve r , th e i n st ant