Pennsylvania Requires Court to Announce a Convicted Defendant’s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gADDr_7v and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Posted on June 2, 2022 by Barry Zalma
Claire A. Risoldi, in a second try appealed from the Judgment of Sentence, entered after remand for resentencing on the restitution portion of her sentence. Risoldi challenged the legality of her sentence. In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Claire A. Risoldi, 2022 PA Super 94, No. 1382 EDA 2021, J-A07001-22, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 24, 2022) Risoldi’s second appeal requires a finding from the trial court of whether she was entitled to a finding of a recidivism risk reduction incentive (RRRI) finding.
FACTS
On February 5, 2019, a jury convicted Risoldi of various offenses related to her participation in an insurance fraud scheme. On May 17, 2019, the court sentenced Risoldi to an aggregate term of 11½ to 23 months’ incarceration and over $10 million in restitution. On review, this Court vacated the restitution portion of Risoldi’s sentence, remanded for resentencing solely on that issue, and affirmed all other aspects of Risoldi’s sentence. [Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 238 A.3d 434, 465 (Pa. Super. 2020)] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of a further appeal [Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 244 A.3d 1230 (Pa. 2021)].
On June 25, 2021, the court resentenced Risoldi only on the restitution portion of her sentence. At no point in Risoldi’s initial sentencing or resentencing did the court state whether Risoldi is eligible to participate in a reentry plan. Risoldi timely filed a Notice of Appeal and both she and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Risoldi argued only that the sentencing court imposed an illegal sentence on May 17, 2019, and reimposed an illegal sentence on June 25, 2021, because it did not determine her reentry plan eligibility on the record as required by the Sentencing Code.
The court reviewed the implications of a sentencing court’s failure to state on the record if a defendant is eligible for RRRI minimum sentence under a different subsection of the same statute which states, in relevant part, that “[t]he court shall determine if the defendant is eligible for a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b.1) (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
The Appellate Court concluded that the legislature’s use of the term “shall” in the statute a sentencing court’s failure to determine on the record if a defendant is RRRI eligible results in the imposition of an illegal sentence. The legislature’s use of the term “shall” confers on the sentencing court the requirement that it determine a defendant’s RRRI eligibility at sentencing, and failure to do so results in the imposition of an illegal sentence.
In the instant case, the trial court did not state on the record at sentencing if Risoldi is eligible to participate in a reentry plan. That aspect of Risoldi’s sentence is, therefore, illegal and subject to correction. The appellate court remanded solely for the sentencing court to determine Risoldi’s eligibility to participate in a reentry plan pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)(3).
ZALMA OPINION
It amazes me how many times a person convicted of insurance fraud is able to appeal the sentence imposed. In this case the trial court failed to do what it was required to do and the appellate court sent it back for a re-sentence regarding RRRI. Hopefully the trial court will find she is not eligible.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
