Commonwealth v. Rivera
95 A.3d 913
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Rivera was charged with receiving stolen property and retail theft for items stolen from a general store.
- Public Defender entered appearance; Rivera pled guilty after preliminary hearing and arraignment.
- Judge sentenced Rivera to 12 months probation, restitution of $55, and a $500 Public Defender Assessment (PDA).
- Trial court denied post-sentence motion objecting to the PDA; Rivera timely appealed.
- Court held PDA not authorized under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(ll) or (c)(13); vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- Concurrence judges agreed on vacatur/remand; noted Pride's lack of statutory authority but differed on interpretation of potential allowances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Public Defender Assessment authorized by § 9754(c)(ll)? | Rivera contends PDA is illegal because no statutory authority exists. | Rivera's position is that the PDA represents a permissible condition under § 9754(c)(ll) as a fine. | PDA not authorized under § 9754(c)(ll); illegal. |
| Is the PDA authorized under § 9754(c)(13) as a rehabilitative condition or properly labeled as a cost? | Rivera argues Pride forecloses reimbursement to the Public Defender under § 9754(c)(13). | Rivera argues PDA could be justified as rehabilitative or a permissible cost. | PDA not authorized under § 9754(c)(13); labeling as a cost does not authorize it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 867 A.2d 578 (Pa.Super.2005) (distinguishes fines from costs and restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Pride, 380 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1977) (no statutory authority to reimburse Public Defender; cannot be recharacterized as probation condition)
- Commonwealth v. Opara, 362 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 1975) (no authority to reimburse Public Defender; plurality view on sentencing condition)
- Commonwealth v. Verilla, 526 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 1987) (no statutory authority to order payment for Public Defender services)
- Commonwealth v. Terry, 368 A.2d 279 (Pa. 1977) (reimbursement to defender not authorized where 793 repealed)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2013) (strict construction of § 9754; costs vs. probationary conditions)
- Commonwealth v. Dobbs, 682 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. 1996) (remand when correction may upset sentencing scheme)