Saxberg v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections
42 A.3d 1210
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Saxberg seeks return of funds deducted from his inmate account under Act 84 (42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5)).
- Deductions began in 1999 at 20% monthly while he was imprisoned on life without parole; total alleged to be $910.50.
- Saxberg argues the sentencing order did not impose fines or costs and the form DC-16D lists $910.50 in costs.
- He filed a grievance and petition for review in original jurisdiction challenging the deductions.
- The Department raised jurisdiction, demurrer, and pleading-format objections; the court overruled in part and sustained in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has original jurisdiction over Saxberg’s petition. | Saxberg argues jurisdiction lies in original review. | Department argues no jurisdiction over inmate grievance appeals and PCRA issues. | Original jurisdiction exists for reviewing Act 84 deductions. |
| Whether deductions were authorized where the sentencing order did not expressly impose costs. | Saxberg asserts no explicit costs ordered. | Department relies on a form showing costs and statutory authority. | Undetermined at this stage; unclear if explicit costs were imposed. |
| Whether due process or double jeopardy claims bar the deductions. | Claims lack of process and potential double punishment. | Act 84 is procedural, not punitive, and does not violate double jeopardy. | No definite ruling on these defenses; claims discussed but not dispositive. |
| Whether Saxberg’s petition complies with Pa. R.A.P. 1513(c). | Petition should be in proper numbered form. | Petition precludes proper answer if not in proper format. | Department’s objection sustained; amended petition required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 972 A.2d 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (limits deductions to court-ordered waivable costs; statutorily mandated costs may be deducted)
- LeBar v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Act 84 deductions permitted when costs are statutory; absence of explicit order disallowed for nonstatutory costs)
- Richardson v. Dep't of Corr., 991 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (ministerial calculation/clerical duty; costs may be computed administratively)
- Boyd v. Department of Corrections, 831 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (no need for express order to authorize deductions tied to Court Commitment order)
- Herrschaft v. Department of Corrections, 949 A.2d 976 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (confirms deductions via DC-300B and cost summaries when imposition is statutory)
- Commonwealth v. Ralston, 800 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (retroactive application of procedural Act 84)