Com. v. Trumper, R., Jr. ( 2017 )

J-S42016-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RICHARD TRUMPER, JR.
Appellant No. 478 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-60-CR-0000030-2014
CP-60-CR-0000107-2013
CP-60-CR-0000108-2013
CP-60-CR-0000109-2013
CP-60-CR-0000110-2013
CP-60-CR-0000111-2013
CP-60-CR-0000112-2013
CP-60-CR-0000324-2013
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MOULTON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017
Richard Trumper, Jr. appeals pro se from the February 21, 2017 order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of the 17th Judicial District (Union
County Branch) denying his petition for refund of crime victim compensation
fund. We affirm.
On June 20, 2014, the trial court sentenced Trumper at eight different
docket numbers. Each sentencing order required Trumper to “pay any and all
applicable court costs, costs of prosecution, surcharges, and costs of parole
J-S42016-17
supervision.” See, e.g., Order, 6/26/14, CP-60-CR-0000107-2013.1 Trumper
asserts, and the dockets reflect, that he was assessed a $60 fee under section
11.1101 of the Crime Victims Act, 18 P.S. § 11.1101,2 for each docket.3
On January 19, 2017, Trumper filed a petition for refund of crime victim
compensation fund alleging that under section 11.1101(a)(1) he should have
been required to pay only one $60.00 fee because there was one “sentencing
event.” The trial court treated the motion as a request to correct an illegal
sentence based on a patent error, and, on February 21, 2017, denied the
motion. See, e.g., Order, 2/21/17, CP-60-CR-0000107-2013. On March 8,
____________________________________________
A sentencing order was entered at each docket on June 26, 2014 and
1
each order included the quoted language.
2 Section 11.1101 of the Crime Victim’s Act states:
(a) Imposition.--
(1) A person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere or who is
convicted of a crime shall, in addition to costs imposed
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 3571(c) (relating to Commonwealth
portion of fines, etc.), pay costs of at least $60 and may be
sentenced to pay additional costs in an amount up to the
statutory maximum monetary penalty for the offense
committed.
18 P.S. § 11.1101(a)(1).
3As required by section 11.1101(b), Trumper was assessed $35.00 for
the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund and $25.00 for the Victim Witness
Service Fund. See 18 P.S. § 11.1101(b) (providing for disposition of costs
collected under subsection 11.1101(a)).
-2-
J-S42016-17
2017, Trumper filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises the following issue
on appeal:
Whether Judge Louise Knecht erred when she determined
that [Trumper] was not entitled to a refund of improperly
collected funds pursuant to the Crime Victim Compensation
Fund?
Trumper’s Br. at 2 (full capitalization omitted).
Here, the sentencing orders required Trumper to pay “any and all
applicable court costs, costs of prosecution, surcharges, and costs of parole
supervision”; the orders did not specify any amount for the costs and
surcharges. Order, 6/26/14. Further, the sentencing orders were not
required to set the amount of costs assessed. See Richardson v. Dep’t of
Corr., 991 A.2d 394, 397 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (noting that “the practice of a
judge ordering a defendant to pay costs, and leaving the assessment of the
amount to the clerk appears to be a common one, as it has been noted in our
cases a number of times, though never as a determinative fact”). Accordingly,
we conclude that there are no errors on the face of the sentencing orders.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding no patent error and dismissing
Trumper’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 66-67
(Pa. 2007) (courts can exercise inherent power to correct patent errors only
when an illegal sentence is obvious, that is, where a sentence imposed is
clearly incompatible with record or black letter law).
Further, to the extent Trumper is challenging the actions taken by the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and/or the Union County Clerk of
-3-
J-S42016-17
Court after imposition of the sentencing order, the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to address such a challenge. See Spotz v. Commonwealth, 972
A.2d 125, 134 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (noting trial court lacked jurisdiction over
challenges to the “governmental actions of [the clerk of courts] and [the
Department of Corrections]”); Commonwealth v. Parella, 834 A.2d 1253,
1256 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (court of common pleas lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over inmate’s action to stop Department of Corrections from
making deductions from his prison account pursuant to Act 84; inmate did not
challenge underlying sentence imposing costs or restitution, and
Commonwealth Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
review of governmental action).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/15/2017
-4-