Felon Must Pay Restitution to Each Victim
Barry Zalma
Apr 26, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gS8jaT6g and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2cucqhx and at https://lnkd.in/g7x_-NfQ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
John James Succi appealed pro se from the order dismissing his “Motion to Vacate Restitution/Sentencing.” In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. John James Succi, No. 229 EDA 2022, No. J-S22022-22, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (February 28, 2023) the Superior Court gave consideration to the pro se motions of the convicted felon.
FACTS
In a prior appeal, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarized the facts leading to the underlying convictions as follows:
"Succi was a residential and commercial contractor. Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2013, Succi entered into thirteen contracts to build, remodel, or construct additions on certain properties located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and Margate, New Jersey. In each instance, Succi either failed to finish the work, failed to obtain necessary permits, failed to perform under the contract, claimed he was insured when he was not, or provided fraudulent receipts. It was also typical for Succi to quote a price for a particular project and then increase the costs. If the homeowner challenged Succi’s work practices, he threatened them with legal proceedings that would financially cripple the homeowners. In at least two instances, Succi placed mechanic’s liens on homeowners’ properties."[Commonwealth v. Succi, 480 EDA 2015 (unpub. memo. at 1-2) (Pa. Super. Jan. 5, 2017).]
Succi was charged with multiple counts of home improvement fraud, theft by deception, and deceptive business practices, and one count of insurance fraud. Succi was convicted of 12 counts each of deceptive business practices and theft by deception, two counts of home improvement fraud, and one count of insurance fraud.
SENTENCING HEARING
The sentencing hearing proceeded with victim impact testimony presented by the Commonwealth, and character evidence presented by Succi. The trial court sentenced Succi to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment, imposing consecutive sentences with respect to each victim. After announcing the sentence for each criminal conviction, the court imposed restitution, as requested by the Commonwealth.
Succi filed a direct appeal and argued:
1 several convictions were barred by the statute of limitations;
2 jurisdiction and venue in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas was improper; and
3 the “life sentence” imposed by the trial court was unconstitutional and illegal.
The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur review.
THE PRO SE MOTION
The trial court entered an order denying Succi relief. The court explained that it considered Succi’s motion to be a second, untimely PCRA petition, and it had no jurisdiction to address Succi’s claim.
Whether a PCRA petition or not restitution is governed by state statute that mandates that a trial court “shall order full restitution [r]egardless of the current financial resources of the defendant, so as to provide the victim with the fullest compensation for the loss.” The statute further requires that the court “specify the amount and method of restitution” at the time of sentencing.
The crux of Succi’s claim is that the trial court did not impose restitution at the time of his sentencing as required by statute. After announcing the prison terms imposed for the crimes against each victim, the trial court admitted the Commonwealth’s sentencing exhibits, which detailed the restitution requested for each victim. The court noted that if it believed Succi could repay the victims, it “would have entered a different sentence [,]” presumably with a shorter prison term. Therefore, Succi’s claim that the court did not impose restitution at the time of his sentencing hearing was simply incorrect.
Moreover, the May 20, 2015, order – which Succi claims the court, belatedly and without conducting a hearing, added restitution to his sentence – makes no mention of any restitution amounts which had been set at sentencing.
The trial court’s order was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Victims of crime must make certain that the state prosecutor, after convicting the criminal, like Succi, must demand restitution. The victims did so in this case and the prosecutor effectively obtained, at sentencing, an order of restitution. Succi, sentenced to many years in prison may never be able to pay the ordered restitution unless there are assets that could be taken to pay the restitution. Regardless, convicted felons have nothing but time so he wasted the appellate courts time by bringing this pro se motion which failed. He will remain in the Gray Bar Hotel for the next 15 to 30 years.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
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]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
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://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/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; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/guWk7gfM
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
ZIFL Volume 30, Issue 17
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on September 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in educing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Bad Faith Suit Fails
State Farm Must Try Breach of Contract Claim Only
Breach of Condition is Ground to Deny Claim and Void Policy
In Arutyun Darakchyan v. State Fann General Insurance Company et al., No. 2:25-cv-03880-CAS-AJRx, United States District Court, C.D. California (August 11, 2026) Plaintiff Arutyun Darakchyan sued State Farm General Insurance Company after State Farm denied his homeowners burglary claim for losses allegedly sustained at his Tarzana residence.
Read the rest of the article and the full issue of ZIFL at ...
No Summary Judgment for Bad Faith for Lack of Evidence
Post 5437
Posted on August 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Avoids Summary Judgment
In Riley and Rebecca Ross v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company, and Illinois Corporation, No. 2:25-CV-00006-JAG, United States District Court, E.D. Washington (August 18, 2026), Pending before the USDC was Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment the plaintiffs brought claims against Allstate arising from its handling of an insurance claim. They alleged Allstate failed to make proper payment, adequately investigate the loss, retain an expert, respond to communications, and properly value damages including alternative living expenses and damage to a hydronic heating system.
Plaintiffs argued Defendant failed “to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies.”
ISSUES
Allstate sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), ...
