Com. v. Kokinda, J.
Com. v. Kokinda, J. No. 3667 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Jason Kokinda pleaded guilty but mentally ill in 2009 to unlawful contact with a minor and related charges after online communications with an undercover agent; sentenced in 2010 to 36–84 months.
- At sentencing the court did not impose fines but did order payment of fees and costs; Kokinda did not object to the sentence, file post-sentence motions, or appeal directly.
- Kokinda filed pro se PCRA relief in 2011; the PCRA was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal in 2013.
- Kokinda, no longer incarcerated and living out of state, filed a pro se Petition to Waive Fees or Suspend Collections in October 2016, claiming wrongful assessment of $626.51, harassment by a collection agency, inability to pay, and inability to contest due to poverty and residence.
- The trial court denied the petition on October 31, 2016; Kokinda appealed and argued the court should construe Pa.R.Crim.P. 706 pragmatically and that due process required waiving/suspending collections.
- The Superior Court affirmed: fees were properly ordered as part of the sentence and Kokinda waived challenge by failing to timely appeal; his Rule 706/due-process claim was premature absent execution of a bench warrant or collection action triggering a Rule 706 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kokinda may avoid fees/costs because no fines were imposed | Kokinda argued lack of fines meant no obligation to pay fees/costs | Commonwealth/trial court: fees/costs were separately ordered at sentencing | Held Kokinda waived challenge; record shows fees/costs were ordered and he failed to appeal or post-sentence move |
| Whether Rule of Criminal Procedure 706 required the court to afford relief now | Kokinda argued court must apply Rule 706 pragmatically to waive/suspend collections and protect civil rights | Trial court/Commonwealth: Rule 706 procedures apply when collection enforcement occurs; no hearing has yet occurred | Held claim is premature; Rule 706 remedies available if/when enforcement (e.g., bench warrant, garnishment) occurs |
| Whether due process was violated by collections efforts | Kokinda alleged harassment and inability to contest due to poverty/out-of-state status | Commonwealth: no enforcement action demonstrated; due-process protections tied to Rule 706 process when triggered | Held no current due-process violation shown; court will afford Rule 706 protections if enforcement arises |
| Whether the sentence or imposition of costs is illegal and subject to collateral attack | Kokinda suggested illegality by contesting fees | Commonwealth: sentencing issues were waived for failure to appeal; challenges to sentence would require timely PCRA | Held sentencing aspect ordering costs is valid and waived; collateral attack improper without timely PCRA or direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate court may affirm on any valid basis)
- Burwell, 58 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to object to sentence or appeal waives challenge to aspects of sentence)
- Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2000) (motion to correct an illegal sentence treated as PCRA if post-sentence motions/direct appeal not timely filed)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Benedict v. Cliff, 304 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1973) (bench warrant execution and processes relevant to nonpayment enforcement under Rule 706)