Rotola appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion at the time of sentencing by ordering that he pay restitution in an amount that was neither commensurate with his degree of criminality nor supported by the record. Specifically, he asserted that there was no nexus to the offense for which he pled guilty and the amount ordered, where he was not responsible for the burglary that led to the victim’s loss. Rather, he claimed that he merely sold a relatively small portion of the items stolen from the victim to a pawn shop.

The Superior Court noted that even where the injury to the victim may have directly resulted from a defendant’s criminal acts, it is still necessary that “the amount of the ‘full restitution’ be determined under the adversarial system with considerations of due process.” However, in Rotola’s case, restitution was never mentioned anywhere in the entire plea agreement nor did the court did not make Rotola fully aware, as part of his guilty plea, that it would impose mandatory restitution as part of his sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, the court did not state the amount and method of restitution on the record, prior to entering its sentencing order. Additionally, the Commonwealth did not make a recommendation to the court, at or prior to the time of sentencing, as to the amount of restitution to be ordered or enter evidence to support the amount of the victim’s losses.

On those facts, the Superior Court concluded that where there is no support for the amount ordered, the voluntary, knowing and intelligent nature of Rotola’s plea is called into question. In making this conclusion, the Superior Court reminded the trial court that even though full restitution is mandatory in cases involving crimes where property has been stolen, converted or otherwise unlawfully obtained, it is still necessary that defendants agree to restitution, as part of the plea bargaining process, openly on the record.