Com. v. Garcia, J.
1241 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Jesus M. Garcia, an inmate, sought an order to stop 20% Act 84 deductions from his inmate account for fines, costs, and restitution, claiming deductions were imposed after sentencing without a hearing or consideration of his ability to pay.
- Trial court denied Garcia’s “Petition to Cease Act 84 Deductions,” concluding complaints about DOC deductions should be directed to the State Bureau of Corrections or State Board of Probation and Parole, and cited Commonwealth v. Danysh.
- The trial court denied relief rather than transferring the matter to Commonwealth Court, creating a final, appealable order.
- The Superior Court agreed that Act 84 deduction challenges generally fall within Commonwealth Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction under Danysh, but concluded Garcia’s petition also implicitly raised a legality-of-sentence claim (alleging failure to consider ability to pay).
- Because challenges to legality of sentence fall within the PCRA, the Superior Court construed the petition as a PCRA petition and held it was untimely: Garcia’s judgment became final in 2012 and a timely PCRA petition was due by July 9, 2013; his 2017 filing was untimely and did not invoke any statutory exceptions.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order on the alternate ground that it lacked jurisdiction under the PCRA to entertain an untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying petition to stop Act 84 deductions without a hearing | Garcia: DOC deducted 20% after sentencing without hearing or consideration of ability to pay; he requested a hearing | Trial court/Commonwealth: Such challenges generally fall within Commonwealth Court jurisdiction or administrative remedies; trial court lacked authority | Court: Petition implicates legality of sentence but is an untimely PCRA petition; trial court lacked jurisdiction under PCRA, so denial affirmed |
| Whether Act 84 deduction claims lie in Commonwealth Court or common pleas court | Garcia: sought relief in trial court (implied: trial court can address) | Commonwealth/trial court: Danysh assigns exclusive original jurisdiction to Commonwealth Court for claims against DOC deductions | Court: Generally Commonwealth Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, but here claim recast as PCRA legality-of-sentence issue |
| Whether Garcia’s claim constitutes a PCRA petition (legality of sentence) | Garcia: framed as administrative/deprivation issue re: DOC deductions | Commonwealth/Superior: Claim alleges sentencing court failed to consider ability to pay, implicating legality of sentence and PCRA review | Court: Petition construed as a PCRA petition because it implicates legality of sentence |
| Whether untimely PCRA petition can be heard due to exceptions | Garcia: did not allege a timeliness exception (e.g., newly discovered evidence, government interference, new retroactive right) | Commonwealth: No exception applies; PCRA time limits are jurisdictional | Court: Petition untimely and no statutory exception applies; court lacks jurisdiction; affirm order |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Act 84 deduction claims against DOC generally fall within Commonwealth Court's exclusive original jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim that sentencing court failed to consider ability to pay implicates legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time restrictions are jurisdictional)