Commonwealth v. Morales-Rivera, 67 A.3d 1290

Morales-Rivera was convicted in 2006 of rape of a child, indecent assault, and corruption of minors, and sentenced January 2, 2007 to 15 to 40 years plus costs and restitution.
He was later assessed $4,353.91 in transportation costs for a PCRA hearing.
On April 30, 2012, Morales-Rivera petitioned for a writ of mandamus to stop transportation cost collections and to reimburse $443.10.
The common pleas court denied the mandamus on July 24, 2012, ruling that Act 2006-143 amended Section 9728(g) to include transportation costs and applied retroactively to him.
The Superior Court affirmed the denial, holding the statute’s plain language governs costs and Fordyce’s authority is not controlling after Act 143.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 2006-143 applies to Morales-Rivera’s transportation costs.	Morales-Rivera argues the amendment should not retroactively apply.	The defendant argues the amended §9728(g) applies to sentencing and PCRA costs.	Act 143 applies to Morales-Rivera.
Whether the common pleas court properly applied current law to the costs issue.	Morales-Rivera contends the court failed to apply current law.	The court correctly applied the amended statute governing costs.	The court’s application of current law was affirmed.
Whether Fordyce controls the outcome after Act 143.	Fordyce should preclude including transportation costs.	Act 143 supersedes Fordyce by codifying transportation costs as recoverable by statute.	Fordyce not controlling; Act 143 governs.

Fordyce v. Clerk of Courts, 869 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (transportation costs not within costs of prosecution prior to Act 143)
Garzone v. Commonwealth, 34 A.3d 67 (Pa. 2012) (relevance limited to salaries of district attorneys; not about transportation costs)
Princeton Sportswear Corp. v. Redevelopment Authority, 460 Pa. 274 (1975) (mandamus scope and relief standards)