The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the convictions of Stephen M. Ruzbacki for disorderly conduct and harassment but vacated his sentence due to issues surrounding restitution. The court's decision, filed on October 30, 2026, affects Ruzbacki, who was involved in a physical altercation with his cousin at an assisted living facility in Butler County, Pennsylvania.

Ruzbacki's case began on March 30, 2023, when police were called to Magnolia Place, where an altercation occurred between Ruzbacki and his cousin, Frank Yerace. The conflict arose over Ruzbacki's mother, who was a resident at the facility. During the incident, Ruzbacki struck Yerace with his head, knocking out a tooth. Initially charged with multiple offenses, the Commonwealth later amended the charges to two counts of disorderly conduct and one count of harassment. Ruzbacki, who initially had legal representation, opted to represent himself during the bench trial held on November 24, 2025.

During the trial, Ruzbacki claimed he acted in self-defense. However, the court found him guilty of the amended charges. Following his conviction, Ruzbacki was ordered to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine of $100 for each offense. Additionally, he was required to pay $32.50 in restitution to cover a witness's travel expenses to attend the trial. Ruzbacki appealed the decision, raising multiple issues regarding his trial and the charges against him.

The Superior Court, in its ruling, affirmed Ruzbacki's convictions but vacated the judgment of sentence, citing improper handling of the restitution order. The court noted that the trial court had not set a specific amount for restitution at the time of sentencing, which is required by law. The ruling stated, "the trial court ordered Appellant 'to pay restitution' without setting an amount or method and gave '[t]he Commonwealth ... 10 days ... to file a restitution order.' This practice is contrary to law." The judges involved in the decision included Judge Olson, alongside Judges Bowes and Murray.

This ruling has significant implications for Ruzbacki, who will now face resentencing. The court's decision to vacate the judgment of sentence means that the restitution issue must be resolved properly in accordance with legal standards. The court emphasized that restitution must be determined at the time of sentencing, and any general or open-ended restitution order is considered illegal.

The case highlights the importance of procedural correctness in criminal trials, particularly concerning defendants' rights and the handling of sentencing orders. The ruling serves as a reminder that even minor procedural missteps can lead to significant changes in a defendant's sentence.

Looking ahead, Ruzbacki's case will return to the lower court for resentencing, where the issues surrounding restitution will need to be addressed appropriately. The court's decision allows for the possibility of an appeal following the resentencing, depending on the outcome and any further legal arguments that may arise.