BROADCASTS.com

b'

Felon Must Pay Restitution to Each Victim\\n\\nJohn James Succi appealed pro se from the order dismissing his "Motion \\nto Vacate Restitution/Sentencing." In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. \\nJohn James Succi, No. 229 EDA 2022, No. J-S22022-22, Superior Court of \\nPennsylvania (February 28, 2023) the Superior Court gave consideration \\nto the pro se motions of the convicted felon.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nIn a prior appeal, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarized\\n the facts leading to the underlying convictions as follows:\\n\\nSucci was a residential and commercial contractor. Beginning in 2005 and\\n continuing through 2013, Succi entered into thirteen contracts to \\nbuild, remodel, or construct additions on certain properties located in \\nBucks County, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and \\nMargate, New Jersey. In each instance, Succi either failed to finish the\\n work, failed to obtain necessary permits, failed to perform under the \\ncontract, claimed he was insured when he was not, or provided fraudulent\\n receipts. It was also typical for Succi to quote a price for a \\nparticular project and then increase the costs. If the homeowner \\nchallenged Succi\'s work practices, he threatened them with legal \\nproceedings that would financially cripple the homeowners. In at least \\ntwo instances, Succi placed mechanic\'s liens on homeowners\' properties. \\n[Commonwealth v. Succi, 480 EDA 2015 (unpub. memo. at 1-2) (Pa. Super. \\nJan. 5, 2017).]\\n\\nSucci was charged with multiple counts of home improvement fraud, theft \\nby deception, and deceptive business practices, and one count of \\ninsurance fraud. Succi was convicted of 12 counts each of deceptive \\nbusiness practices and theft by deception, two counts of home \\nimprovement fraud, and one count of insurance fraud.\\n\\nSENTENCING HEARING\\n\\nThe sentencing hearing proceeded with victim impact testimony presented \\nby the Commonwealth, and character evidence presented by Succi. The \\ntrial court sentenced Succi to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years\' \\nimprisonment, imposing consecutive sentences with respect to each \\nvictim. After announcing the sentence for each criminal conviction, the \\ncourt imposed restitution, as requested by the Commonwealth.\\n\\nSucci filed a direct appeal and argued:\\n\\nseveral convictions were barred by the statute of limitations;\\njurisdiction and venue in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas was \\nimproper; and\\nthe "life sentence" imposed by the trial court was unconstitutional and \\nillegal.\\n\\nThe Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and the \\nPennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur review.\\n\\nTHE PRO SE MOTION\\n\\nThe trial court entered an order denying Succi relief. The court \\nexplained that it considered Succi\'s motion to be a second, untimely \\nPCRA petition, and it had no jurisdiction to address Succi\'s claim.\\n\\n\\nMoreover, the May 20, 2015, order - which Succi claims the court, \\nbelatedly and without conducting a hearing, added restitution to his \\nsentence - makes no mention of any restitution amounts which had been \\nset at sentencing.\\n\\nThe trial court\'s order was affirmed.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nVictims of crime must make certain that the state prosecutor, after \\nconvicting the criminal, like Succi, must demand restitution. The \\nvictims did so in this case and the prosecutor effectively obtained, at \\nsentencing, an order of restitution. Succi, sentenced to many years in \\nprison may never be able to pay the ordered restitution unless there are\\n assets that could be taken to pay the restitution. Regardless, \\nconvicted felons have nothing but time so he wasted the appellate courts\\n time by bringing this pro se motion which failed. He will remain in the\\n Gray Bar Hotel for the next 15 to 30 years.