from the Order Entered September 7, 2017 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clinton County Criminal Division at No.
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and PLATT [*] , J.
Jeremy Michael Baney, appeals from the trial court's
order denying his motion for resentencing after it vacated
his sentence of restitution. We affirm.
the following pertinent factual and procedural background
from the trial court's September 7, 2017 opinion and our
independent review of the certified record. On May 19, 2003,
Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to twenty-one
counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), five
counts of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, and one
count each of criminal conspiracy and criminal use of a
communication facility. The charges arose from Appellant's
involvement in a multiple county drug ring in central
Pennsylvania, from 1997 to 2001. On August 11, 2003, pursuant
to the agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of incarceration of not less than twenty nor
more than thirty-nine years,  plus $50, 000.00 in fines, and an
aggregate restitution amount of $12, 621.93, payable to the
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the
Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). This Court affirmed
Appellant's judgment of sentence on September 3, 2004,
and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied permission for
further review on June 7, 2005. (See Commonwealth v.
Baney, 860 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal
denied, 877 A.2d 459 (Pa. 2005)).
filed a petition to modify restitution on March 3, 2017.
(See Petition to Modify Restitution, 3/03/17). On
June 9, 2017, after holding a conference with counsel,
allowing the parties to brief the issue, and with the
Commonwealth's agreement, the court vacated the
restitution payable to the OAG and PSP. On June 23, 2017,
Appellant filed a pro se motion for modification of
sentence,  in which he sought resentencing on all
counts of the complaint. (See Motion to Modify
Prison Sentence, 6/23/17, at unnumbered page 2 ¶ 10).
The court denied the motion on September 7, 2017, after a
hearing. Appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration that the court denied, and Appellant timely
raises one question for our review: "Whether the [trial]
court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in
failing to re-sentence the Appellant after modifying the
restitution aspect of [his] sentence?" (Appellant's
Brief, at 6) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Appellant's issue lacks merit.
the context of criminal proceedings, an order of restitution
is not simply an award of damages, but, rather, a
sentence." Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d
769, 771 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and internal quotation
to section 1106(c)(3) of the Crimes Code:
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 . . . 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) (emphasis added).
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on
appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this
context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an
error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by
reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or
misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a
manifestly unreasonable decision.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa.
Super. 2014), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 275
(Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).
Appellant maintains that, because it vacated his restitution,
the court was required to "resentence [him] on all
counts to which he entered guilty pleas[.]"