Foster v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
159 A.3d 1020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Earl Foster, an inmate at SCI‑Dallas, requested under the Right to Know Law (RTKL) a copy of his "Written Judgment of Sentence Order" showing judge's signature, statute, and statutory authorization for docket CP‑51‑CR‑0014680‑2007.
- The Department of Corrections’ Open Records Officer responded that the requested record did not exist in the Department’s possession.
- Foster appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR). The Department located a sentencing order on Form AOPC 2066 signed by the sentencing judge and attested it had no other responsive records.
- OOR denied Foster’s appeal, finding the Department’s sworn attestations credible and that it met its burden showing no responsive records in its custody; OOR noted judicial records, if they exist, may be obtained from the issuing court.
- Foster sought review in this Court but did not contest the OOR’s determination; instead he used the appeal to challenge the legality of his confinement and ask for remand to the sentencing court for habeas relief.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed OOR, holding the RTKL is not a vehicle to collaterally attack a criminal sentence and that the PCRA (and other proper remedies) are the exclusive avenues for such challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Foster's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department possessed the requested written judgment of sentence | Foster contended the Department failed to possess the proper legal sentencing order required to lawfully detain him | Department produced an attestation and a signed Form AOPC 2066 and stated no other responsive records exist | Department met its RTKL burden; OOR and Court accepted affidavit showing no additional records exist |
| Whether RTKL appeal can be used to challenge the legality of Foster's confinement | Foster argued lack of a proper sentencing order makes his detention unlawful and sought remand/habeas relief | Department argued RTKL only governs public‑records access and does not provide relief from confinement | Court held RTKL is not a proper vehicle to collaterally attack a judgment of sentence; such claims are outside RTKL's scope |
| Whether the Court could remand the RTKL appeal to sentencing court for habeas relief | Foster requested remand so sentencing court would address habeas corpus ad subjiciendum | Department maintained no authority to convert RTKL appeal into collateral‑attack remand | Court held there is no legal authority to remand an RTKL appeal for collateral attack on a sentence |
| Whether OOR properly relied on affidavits to find no records exist | Foster implied Department acted in bad faith or withheld records | Department provided sworn attestations from records supervisor locating one form and denying possession of other records | Court affirmed OOR's reliance on affidavit evidence absent proof of bad faith or existence of other records |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (affidavit can provide sufficient evidentiary support under RTKL)
- Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL appeal is not the proper forum to challenge legality of confinement)
- McGowan v. Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 103 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (affidavits accepted absent evidence of bad faith)
- Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (standards for evidentiary weight of agency affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Upshur, 924 A.2d 642 (Pa. 2007) (common‑law right of access to judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (general right to inspect and copy public judicial records)
- Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d 414 (Pa. 1987) (common‑law right of access compelled by public‑trial principles)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA is the exclusive state remedy for prisoners challenging illegal sentences)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (purpose and scope of the RTKL)