Com. v. Ford, C.
620 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Christian Lee Ford entered negotiated guilty pleas on June 23, 2016 to offenses across three dockets and received concurrent terms of incarceration, probation, fines, and costs.
- Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal; he filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 22, 2016, which the court treated as timely.
- Counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on March 10, 2017 for lack of merit.
- Appellant challenged (1) imposition of fines and costs without a pre-sentence hearing on ability to pay, and (2) trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness for failing to object to an illegal sentence.
- The Superior Court examined whether the record contained evidence of Appellant’s ability to pay mandatory and discretionary fines and whether the fines exceeded statutory amounts.
- Court held several fines were imposed illegally (either no ability-to-pay record for discretionary fines or a fine exceeding the applicable statutory amount) and vacated those fines, remanding for resentencing; other fines were upheld as mandatory and not subject to the ability-to-pay hearing requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fines/costs were imposed without required inquiry into ability to pay | Ford: sentencing court imposed fines/costs without a pre-sentence hearing or any record of ability to pay, rendering sentence illegal | Commonwealth: party consented to fines in plea; mandatory fines do not require pre-sentence ability-to-pay hearing; costs hearing unnecessary absent threat of incarceration | Court: Where no record of ability to pay exists for discretionary fines, the sentence is illegal; vacated discretionary fines at two dockets and one improperly-calculated mandatory fine that exceeded statutory amount; mandatory $1,500 fine upheld |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to illegal fines | Ford: counsel failed to object or seek correction of illegal fines | Commonwealth: counsel’s failure to raise meritless claim is not ineffective assistance | Court: Ineffective-assistance claim moot as court granted relief on illegal fines; for the remaining mandatory fine, counsel not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Barndt v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA court decisions)
- Garcia v. Commonwealth, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard quoted for PCRA review)
- Rivera v. Commonwealth, 154 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2017) (a defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence by plea)
- Gentry v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (illegal sentence cannot be waived by plea)
- Childs v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 706 and when an ability-to-pay hearing is required prior to incarceration for nonpayment)
- Boyd v. Commonwealth, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (distinguishing non-waivable challenges where no record exists of ability to pay)
- Gipple v. Commonwealth, 613 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1992) (pre-sentence hearing not required for mandatory fines)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 879 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2005) (vacating discretionary fine when court made no findings on ability to pay)
- Tilley v. Commonwealth, 80 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)