Superior Court 7/16/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GREGORY RICKY BROWN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GREGORY RICKY BROWN
No. 1507 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 156 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/16/2008
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on January 23, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-36-CR-0005948-2004
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Concurring Statement by: KLEIN, J.
Appellant, Gregory Ricky Brown, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 23, 2006, as made final by a restitution order entered on May 16, 2006. We granted en banc review to determine whether Medicare is entitled to restitution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106. The trial court ruled that Medicare was entitled to restitution. We agree and therefore affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here



¶ 5 Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
I. Did the trial court err in ordering Mr. Brown to pay
$509.65 to Medicare, where Medicare is a
government agency, and is not a victim entitled to
restitution pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106?

¶ 6 Appellant argues that the sentence is illegal because Medicare is not
entitled to restitution. Appellant reasons that under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106,
Medicare is only entitled to restitution if it paid Mr. Rissell directly; instead,
Medicare paid Mr. Rissell’s medical providers. Appellant’s Brief at 13.

¶ 7 Appellant contends that under the Crimes Code, the trial court had no
authority to award restitution to Medicare. Thus, Appellant raises a nonwaivable
challenge to the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v.
Pleger, 934 A.2d 715, 719 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing In the Interest of
M.W., 725 A.2d 729, 731 n.4 (Pa. 1999). This issue of statutory
construction is a pure question of law, subject to plenary and de novo
review. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 834 A.2d 1127, 1131 (Pa. 2003).

¶ 8 The Legislature has the authority to define, by statute, who is entitled
to restitution. Commonwealth v. Runion, 662 A.2d 617, 620-621 (Pa.
1995). Thus, our task is one of statutory interpretation. The rules of
statutory construction are well settled: