Com. v. Weaver, D. (judgment order)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S63030-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 456 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002149-1993 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 457 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002904-1991 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 458 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 J-S63030-14 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001228-1997 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 459 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002119-1988 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 460 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002774-1991 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 461 MDA 2014 -2- J-S63030-14 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000439-1988 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 462 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-2245-1987 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVON ROBERT WEAVER Appellant No. 463 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002149-1993 BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 18, 2014 ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. -3- J-S63030-14 In this consolidated appeal, Appellant, Devon Robert Weaver, challenges, pro se, the trial court’s order denying his request to vacate restitution orders in eight separate judgments of sentence. After careful review, we affirm. The underlying sentencing orders in this appeal were entered at various times from 1987 to 1998. Weaver’s first argument in favor of vacation of his restitution is that the restitution orders were illegally entered. To the extent that this argument is a challenge to the original judgments of sentence, we note that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider these claims, as Weaver has not identified any timeliness exceptions to the jurisdictional requirements of the Post Conviction Relief Act. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 519 (Pa. Super. 2011). To the extent that Weaver argues that such alleged issues with the entry of the restitution orders qualify as reason why the trial court should have exercised its discretion in his favor pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(3) and modified the restitution to zero, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. As this Court has previously stated, while Section 1106(c)(3) permits a court to modify an order of restitution at any time for justifiable reasons, “[a]t some point, finality is needed.” Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2004). The trial court concluded that the restitution orders at issue, which range from 16 to 27 years old, are so stale that finality trumps whatever -4- J-S63030-14 other concerns Weaver may raise. We cannot conclude that this reasoning is capricious or an error of law, and therefore find that none of Weaver’s issues on appeal merit relief. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. -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.