Com. v. Tokarcik, R., Com. v. Tokarcik, R. No. 948 WDA 2016

Appellant Richard Tokarcik was sentenced on November 9, 2010 to prison and ordered to pay restitution ($3,392.89 and $650), fines, and costs; he was instructed to contact Clearfield County Probation within 10 days of parole to set up a payment plan.
Tokarcik served his full sentence and was released; he failed to contact probation and fell into arrears (about $4,505.02, mostly restitution).
On April 29, 2016 the Commonwealth filed a request arising from alleged contempt for nonpayment and failure to contact probation.
At a June 13, 2016 hearing (no transcript in the record), Tokarcik appeared pro se and the trial court entered an order setting a payment plan ($20/month June–Nov 2016; $50/month thereafter) and requiring at least 15 hours/month of community service creditable against restitution.
Tokarcik timely appealed the June 13 order, arguing (1) he was not in contempt, (2) the court failed to ensure a valid waiver of counsel, and (3) sentencing counsel had been ineffective for not explaining post-release obligations.
The Superior Court affirmed: it held the court merely imposed a payment plan under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9730(b) (not a contempt adjudication), deemed the waiver-of-counsel claim waived for lack of transcript, and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim as improperly raised outside the PCRA process.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Trial Court / Commonwealth Argument	Held
Whether court erred by entering a contempt order when Appellant was not in contempt	Tokarcik: no contempt because he was not subject to sanction	Court/Commonwealth: proceeding was to determine ability to pay and to set payment schedule under statutory default procedures	Court: No contempt adjudication; order was a payment plan under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9730(b) and permissible (affirmed)
Whether waiver of right to counsel at hearing was not knowingly and intelligently made	Tokarcik: he did not validly waive counsel	Court/Commonwealth: court found Tokarcik knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently waived; notice informed him about right to counsel and public defender option	Court: Claim waived on appeal for lack of transcript to review the hearing; cannot evaluate without transcript (affirmed)
Whether sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to explain obligation to contact probation after sentence	Tokarcik: counsel failed to explain post-release obligation, rendering counsel ineffective	Court/Commonwealth: such claims must be raised via timely PCRA collateral review, not in this appeal	Court: Ineffective-assistance claim not properly before Superior Court (PCRA is exclusive remedy); claim not considered (affirmed)

Grubb v. Grubb, 473 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1984) (distinguishes civil and criminal contempt; purpose and available sanctions determine type)
Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 424 A.2d 868 (Pa. 1981) (order creating payment schedule in response to nonpayment was not a criminal contempt adjudication)
Gerace v. Gerace, 631 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. 1993) (order entered in response to civil contempt petition can merely modify relief rather than adjudge contempt)
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant must provide necessary transcripts for appellate review; missing transcripts result in waiver)
Commonwealth v. Osellanie, 597 A.2d 130 (Pa. Super. 1991) (in forma pauperis status does not relieve appellant of obligation to order required transcripts)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101 (Pa. 1998) (appellant must order and pay for transcripts necessary to resolve appeal issues)
Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA provides the exclusive means for collateral attack on sentencing issues)