Com. v. Hast, B. ( 2018 )

J-S18018-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
BOBBY P. HAST, :
:
Appellant : No. 1002 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered May 8, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0001561-2013
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MUSMANNO, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 9, 2018
Bobby P. Hast (“Hast”) appeals, pro se, from the Order denying his
“Motion to Defer Payment of Fines, Fees, Costs, and Restitution Until Paroled.”
Because we conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we
vacate the Order.
On July 8, 2014, Hast entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count each
of robbery, persons not to possess firearms, possession of an instrument of
crime, theft by unlawful taking, and resisting arrest; two counts each of
aggravated assault, receiving stolen property, and terroristic threats; and five
counts of recklessly endangering another person. The trial court sentenced
Hast to a term of 7 to 14 years in prison, followed by 5 years of probation.
The trial court also directed Hast to pay $2,200.38 in court costs and fees.
Hast did not file a direct appeal.
J-S18018-18
On May 1, 2017, Hast filed the instant pro se “Motion to Defer Payment
of Fines, Fees, Costs, and Restitution Until Paroled,” arguing that the
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) had been deducting his “limited funds” for
the payment of fines, fees, costs, and restitution, and requesting the trial court
to enter an order to “prevent the continued interception of financial gifts.”1
On May 8, 2017, the trial court denied Hast’s Act 84 Motion, citing section
9728(b)(5). Hast filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.2
Initially, we must consider whether the trial court had jurisdiction over
Hast’s Act 84 Motion. See Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151, 152
____________________________________________
1 The statute authorizing such deductions, which is commonly referred to as
“Act 84,” provides, inter alia, that “[t]he county correctional facility to which
the offender has been sentenced or the Department of Corrections shall be
authorized to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for
the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation or
costs imposed under section 9721(c.1).” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728(b)(5). Because
Hast’s Motion raises a claim pursuant to Act 84, we will hereinafter refer to it
as an Act 84 Motion.
2 Subsequently, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court stated that
Hast’s Motion challenges the legality of his sentence, and should be addressed
as a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See Trial
Court Opinion, 11/7/17, at 4 (unnumbered). The trial court concluded that
Hast’s filing was untimely under the PCRA. See id. at 5 (unnumbered). We
recognize that, in his brief, Hast argues that the trial court failed to conduct a
hearing to determine his ability to pay the court costs and fees. Brief for
Appellant at 7; see also Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1270 (Pa.
Super. 2013) (en banc) (holding that a claim that a sentencing court failed to
consider defendant’s ability to pay before imposing fines implicates the legality
of the sentence). However, Hast did not raise this claim in his Act 84 Motion,
and therefore, we decline to treat the Act 84 Motion as a PCRA petition.
-2-
J-S18018-18
(Pa. Super. 2003) (raising, sua sponte, the question of subject matter
jurisdiction of an Act 84 claim ruled upon by the court of common pleas). The
Commonwealth asserts, and we agree, that the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hast’s Act 84 Motion. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 5-8.
Hast filed an Act 84 Motion to enjoin the DOC from deducting money
deposited into his prison account, which is effectively a civil action against the
DOC. See Danysh, 833 A.2d at 153 (explaining that a motion seeking to
enjoin Act 84 deductions is a civil action instituted against the DOC, as part of
the Commonwealth government). Therefore, Hast’s Act 84 Motion falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a)(1) (providing that “[t]he Commonwealth Court shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions and proceedings [a]gainst the
Commonwealth government….”); see also Danysh, 833 A.2d at 152-54.
Because the Commonwealth Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over
Hast’s claim, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
Act 84 Motion, and its Order is void. See Danysh, 833 A.2d at 154.
Accordingly, we vacate the Order of the trial court without prejudice to
Hast’s right to seek relief in the Commonwealth Court.
Order vacated. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-3-
J-S18018-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/9/2018
-4-