217 A.3d 824
Pa.2019Background:
- Christian Lee Ford entered negotiated pleas disposing of three separate Lancaster County criminal dockets (DUI with controlled substances; possession with intent to deliver and resisting arrest; later possession after bail), with concurrent terms of incarceration/probation and assorted fines.
- The plea specified fines: $1,500 (DUI—statutory/mandatory for prior DUI), $1,000 (driving while suspended), $100 (PWID), $100 (simple possession); court accepted plea and sentenced accordingly without any on-the-record inquiry into Ford’s ability to pay the non-mandatory fines.
- Ford filed a timely PCRA petition alleging indigency and that the sentence was illegal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9726(c) because the record lacked evidence he was or would be able to pay the imposed fines; PCRA court dismissed the petition.
- The Superior Court held § 9726(c) requires record evidence of ability to pay even for fines in negotiated pleas, concluded three of Ford’s fines were non-mandatory and thus illegal without an ability-to-pay record, vacated those fines, and remanded for resentencing.
- The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held a defendant’s agreement to pay a fine as part of a plea does not, by itself, satisfy § 9726(c); because the record lacked ability-to-pay evidence for non-mandatory fines, the sentence was illegal and the entire judgment was vacated and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant’s agreement in a negotiated plea meets § 9726(c)’s requirement that it "appear of record" the defendant is or will be able to pay a fine | A defendant who bargains for and agrees to pay a fine certifies ability/willingness to pay; that agreement suffices as record evidence | A plea agreement alone is not evidence of ability to pay; § 9726(c) requires independent record evidence | Agreement-to-pay alone does not satisfy § 9726(c); plea agreement is not proof of ability to pay |
| Whether § 9726(c) applies to statutorily mandatory fines | Mandatory statutory fines need not meet § 9726(c) because court lacks discretion to reduce them | § 9726(c) applies only to non-mandatory fines; mandatory fines are exempt | § 9726(c) does not require an ability-to-pay inquiry for truly mandatory fines; non-mandatory fines require the record showing |
| Appropriate remedy when plea includes illegal non-mandatory fines and record lacks ability-to-pay evidence | Vacating only the illegal fines suffices; parties can preserve remainder of plea bargain | Illegal components render the negotiated sentence unlawful; plea bargain is upset if parts are removed | Vacatur of the entire judgment of sentence is the proper remedy to preserve the parties’ bargaining positions; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (illegality of sentence is nonwaivable)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (challenges to legality of sentence cognizable despite plea)
- Commonwealth v. Gipple, 613 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 1992) (noting § 9726(c) does not apply to mandatory fines)
- Commonwealth v. Gardner, 632 A.2d 556 (Pa. Super. 1993) (defendant’s agreement to pay restitution in plea held to preclude later challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (sentencing court’s authority and legality of sentence are judicial concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917 (Pa. 2016) (statutory interpretation guided by plain text)