from the Judgment of Sentence May 2, 2016 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
George Poplawski, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
eighteen months of probation, as well as restitution in the
amount of $41, 637.00. We vacate and remand.
facts underlying Appellant's conviction are unnecessary
to the disposition of his appeal. However, we briefly
summarize the procedural history of his case as follows.
Appellant was arrested and charged with theft by deception,
deceptive or fraudulent business practices, and home
improvement fraud for receiving advance payment for services
that he failed to perform. Following a jury trial in November
2014, Appellant was acquitted of the first two charges, but
convicted of home improvement fraud. Specifically, the jury
found him guilty of receiving advance payments of $2, 000.00
or less for work he did not perform. See 73 P.S.
§ 517.8(a)(2), (c)(2) ("A violation of subsection
(a)(2) constitutes: … (ii) a misdemeanor of the first
degree if the amount of the payment retained is $2, 000 or
January 9, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant to eighteen
months of probation. No amount of restitution was imposed on
that date. On January 28, 2015, the court conducted a
restitution hearing and imposed restitution in the amount of
timely appealed his judgment of sentence. On February 9,
2016, this Court vacated Appellant's sentence in its
entirety and remanded for resentencing. See Commonwealth
v. Poplawski, 141 A.3d 589 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(unpublished memorandum). As Appellant's restitution was
part of his direct sentence, the court was required to impose
restitution at the same time as his sentencing hearing.
2, 2016, Appellant appeared for resentencing. The
Commonwealth referred to the complainant's trial
testimony regarding the amount expended to correct work
Appellant had allegedly done. See Notes of Testimony
(N. T.), 5/2/16, at 3-4. Further, the Commonwealth indicated
a contractor hired by the complainant had testified that he
expended $41, 637.00 to correct the work Appellant had
allegedly performed. Id. The court resentenced
Appellant to eighteen months of probation and restitution in
the amount of $41, 637.00. Id. at 6.
timely appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The
sentencing court issued a responsive opinion.
appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
I. The honorable trial court erred when it imposed an illegal
sentence of restitution in the amount of $41, 637.00, because
there was no causal connection between the crime for which
Appellant was convicted of and the amount of said
II. The honorable trial court erred when it imposed an
illegal sentence of restitution in the amount of $41,
6370.00, because said amount was speculative and not
supported by the record.
Appellant's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization
our disposition of Appellant's issues, we will address
them together. Appellant argues that the court erred in
imposing an illegal sentence of restitution, because 1) there
was no causal connection between the amount of the
restitution and the crime for which Appellant was convicted,
and 2) because the amount of ...