Com. v. Richter, M., 543 WDA 2016

Michael Lee Richter was convicted in four Fayette County cases (one for robbery; three for theft/receiving/conspiracy) and received aggregate prison terms and financial obligations.
Direct appeals were unsuccessful; Richter pursued PCRA petitions previously (one denied; a later attempt to appeal that denial nunc pro tunc was quashed).
On March 24, 2016 Richter filed a pro se motion in the trial court seeking (1) cessation of 20% deductions from his inmate account and (2) return of previously deducted funds, arguing the sentencing court never assessed his ability to pay fines/costs.
The trial court denied relief, citing DOC authority (Act 84 / DC-ADM 005) allowing 20% deductions from inmate accounts for fines/costs/restitution. Richter appealed.
The Superior Court treated Richter’s motion as a PCRA petition because it challenged the legality of sentence (failure to consider ability to pay), and held the petition was untimely under the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations.
No applicable statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar were pleaded; therefore the trial court and Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.

Issue	Richter's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying relief to stop 20% deductions from Richter’s inmate account because it failed to determine his ability to pay before sentencing	Richter argued the sentencing court failed to assess his ability to pay fines/costs, making the financial portion of his sentence illegal and entitling him to stop deductions and reimbursement	Commonwealth (and trial court) maintained the DOC/Act 84 procedures authorize 20% deductions and the matter of deductions is governed by DOC rules; alternatively, the petition was procedurally deficient	Superior Court treated the pleading as a PCRA petition challenging sentence legality but held it was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). No exceptions to the time-bar were invoked, so courts lacked jurisdiction; order denying relief affirmed

Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (challenge to failure to consider ability to pay implicates legality of sentence)
Ingram v. Newman, 830 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (challenge to DOC deductions is not cognizable against DOC in Commonwealth Court when claim is really a collateral attack on sentence)
Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court lacked jurisdiction over civil claim against DOC for inmate account deductions)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 858 A.2d 627 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin DOC deductions in inmate petition)
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA time-bar deprives courts of jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PCRA one-year filing requirement explained)