Com. v. Bidek (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S75005-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. THOMAS WAYNE BIDEK, Appellant No. 1029 WDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 20, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008852-2010 =============================================== COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAKE THOMAS WICKS, Appellant No. 1662 WDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 20, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0011667-2010 BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J. Filed: February 22, 2013 Appellants, Thomas Wayne Bidek and Jake Thomas Wicks, file this appeal from the judgments of sentence entered in the Allegheny County ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S75005-12 Court of Common Pleas, challenging the restitution value assessed by the court.1 We affirm. Appellants pleaded guilty to vandalizing a place of worship, theft by unlawful taking, and burglary. These convictions arose from their attempt to steal copper pipes from a church, which resulted in a burst water line. The Commonwealth sought restitution, but at the first two scheduled hearings, the trial court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence available to make a proper determination of restitution. At the third hearing, the Commonwealth presented the testimonies of a representative from Disaster Restoration Services and the pastor of the church, while Appellants presented the testimony of the church s insurance agent. At this hearing, the Commonwealth and Appellants argued about the proper restitution amount. The Commonwealth submitted an amount of over $44,000 in structural-repair costs, in addition to over $20,000 for the replacement of various pieces of equipment, including an organ and a podium. Appellants, meanwhile, argued that the court should rely primarily on the original estimate provided by Disaster Restoration Services, which was approximately $15,000, and that the Commonwealth overestimated the cost of replacing the equipment. ____________________________________________ 1 These cases had previously been consolidated for appeal. Appellants have filed a joint appellate brief. -2- J-S75005-12 After receiving the evidence and hearing testimony and arguments, the trial court largely credited the latter, $44,000 estimate provided by Disaster Restoration Services, with a few adjustments made for duplicative figures. The court also awarded restitution for replacement of the equipment cited by the Commonwealth, with some figures adjusted for lower values. The court thus entered a restitution order in a total amount of $65,453, of which Appellants are jointly and severally liable. Appellants filed a motion to modify sentence, which the court denied. This appeal followed.2 Appellants raise the following claim on appeal: Did the trial court err as a matter of law in holding [Appellants] jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $63,483 as that amount was not supported by a factual basis on the record, and thus illegal? Appellants Brief at 6. A challenge to a sentence of restitution constitutes a challenge to the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Langston, 904 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Colon, 708 A.2d 1279, 1280 (Pa. Super. 1998)). [O]ur standard of review is plenary and is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law. Id. at 922 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1267-68 (Pa. Super. 2006)). ____________________________________________ 2 Appellants filed this notice of appeal before the court ruled on their motion to modify sentence. We consider the appeal filed the day the trial court denied their post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). -3- J-S75005-12 The record must support the amount of restitution imposed by the court, and may not be speculative or excessive. Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805, 810 (Pa. Super. 2006). Restitution is mandatory when the victim has sustained personal injury or property damage as a result of the crime. Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715, 720 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(a)). The court must consider the extent of the victim s injury, the victim s restitution request, and other matters it deems appropriate. Rush, 909 A.2d at 810 (quoting 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c)(2)(i)). Although restitution does not seek, by its essential nature, the compensation of the victim, the dollar value of the injury suffered by the victim as a result of the crime assists the court in calculating the appropriate amount of restitution. A restitution award must not exceed the victim s losses. A sentencing court must consider the victim s injuries, the victim s request as presented by the district attorney and such other matters as the court deems appropriate. The court must also ensure that the record contains the factual basis for the appropriate amount of restitution. In that way, the record will support the sentence. Pleger, 934 A.2d at 720 (citations omitted). In the case sub judice, after reviewing the parties briefs, the trial court s opinion, and the certified record on appeal, we agree with the reasoning of the trial court and adopt it as our own. See Trial Ct. Op., filed 7/17/12, at 12-15 (finding testimony of Disaster Recovery Services representative the most credible and providing detailed reasons for restitution amounts imposed for equipment losses); see also id. at 5-8 -4- J-S75005-12 (providing detailed findings of fact based on restitution hearings). Appellant s averment, that the restitution amount is speculative because of the lack of evidence explaining the difference between the original $15,000 estimate and the latter $44,000 quote, is meritless. The trial court gave Appellants the opportunity to request and present witnesses to challenge the Commonwealth s proposed restitution value, and Appellants also had a full opportunity to cross-examine the Commonwealth s witnesses. The trial court thus had ample opportunity and a clearly sufficient basis to find that Disaster Recovery Service s final and detailed report was accurate. The trial court s opinion also indicates its careful consideration of all aspects of the restitution calculation, as reflected by its subtraction of duplicative values and reduction of various equipment values.3 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Judgments of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________ 3 The trial court also declined to include certain equipment in the restitution calculation, such as video cameras, fire extinguishers, and an air conditioner. Trial Ct. Op. at 15. -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.