The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP-21-CR-0794-1995 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : MARK NEWTON SPOTZ : CP-21-CR-0794-1995 IN RE: MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., April 20, 2007:-- June 18, 1996 On , Mark Spotz, having been convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree for which the jury imposed the death penalty, appeared before the trial judge who stated: “[i]n accordance with the finding of the jury, the defendant is herewith October 20, 2000 sentenced to death.” On , the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1 July 14, 2002 affirmed the judgment of sentence. On, the Supreme Court of the 2 United States denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Spotz has filed a counseled petition titled “Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and for Statutory Post- Conviction Relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act.” Several hearings have been conducted and others are scheduled. He has now filed a motion to amend his petition in which he avers: 5. On June 18, 1998, the legislature passed Section 4 of Act 84, amending the sentencing code, (42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5)), to include provisions for the Department of Corrections to deduct funds from inmate accounts for payment of fines and costs. 6. On November 1, 2000, long after Petitioner had been sentenced, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) began deducting __________ 1 Commonwealth v. Spotz, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000). 2 Spotz v. Pennsylvania , 534 U.S. 1104 (2002). CP-21-CR-0794-1995 monies from Petitioner’s prison account, alleging costs from this capital prosecution in the amount of $14,373.35, citing Section 9728(b)(5) as authority for the deductions. 7. On January 26, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition To Direct the Department of Corrections to Cease Deducting Funds from Petitioner’s Prison Account under 41 Pa.C.S. §9728 and Return the Previously Deducted Funds to Petitioner. On March 2, 2004, this court dismissed the petition without a hearing. . . . Petitioner alleges that: THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEDUCTION OF MONIES FROM PETITIONER’S PRISON ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF A STATUTE THAT WAS PASSED AFTER PETITIONER’S SENTENCING AND WHERE PETITIONER NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OR A HEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF PURPORTED FINES AND COSTS VIOLATES PETITIONER’S RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 9, 14 AND 17 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION; AND, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Petitioner seeks the following relief: 1. That this Court issue an order staying any further deductions pending final resolution of this Petition. 2. That the Commonwealth be ordered to Answer this petition; 3. That this Court direct the DOC to cease deducting funds from Petitioner’s account and return funds previously deducted; 4. In the alternative that this Court direct discovery of all materials and records in support of the costs assessed be provided to Petitioner and grant Petitioner an evidentiary hearing; 5. That Petitioner’s convictions and sentences be vacated. DISCUSSION A petition seeking post-conviction relief must be treated as a petition under the et seq., Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 regardless of the title of Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, the document filed. See 752 A.2d 868 (Pa. 2000). Bronshtein The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated in : -2- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 -3- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 Although Appellant’s petition was filed as an “Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and for Statutory Post-Conviction Relief Under the Post- Conviction Relief Act,” his petition for habeas corpus relief will be subsumed into the discussion of his PCRA petition given that the PCRA specifically states: “The action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis.” March 2, 2004 On , at this same term and number, this court, as noted in Paragraph 7 of the current motion to amend, dismissed without a hearing a counseled “Petition To Direct the Department of Corrections To Cease Deducting Funds From Petitioner’s Prison Account Under 42 Pa.C.S. §9728 And Return The Previously 3 Deducted Funds to Petitioner. The petition sought the same five forms of relief set forth in the current motion to amend. The Court noted: (1) The assessment of costs is automatic following a conviction, (2) the within petition is not a direct appeal or a post-conviction petition, (3) the assessment of costs has not exposed petitioner to initial confinement, additional confinement or increased conditions of supervisions, and (4) George this court has no jurisdiction over the Department of Corrections. v. Beard, Commonwealth v. 824 A.2d 393 (Pa. Commw. 2003); Fleming, 804 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2002). In his current motion, petitioner avers: In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Buck v. Beard, 879 A.2d 157 (Pa. 2005), Petitioner herein moves to amend his previously filed Petition raising the impropriety and unconstitutionality of the Department of Corrections’ and the Commonwealth’s application of Section 9728(b)(5) to Petitioner’s case and the resulting deductions from his inmate account. Buck, In a state prisoner filed a complaint in mandamus requesting an injunction -4- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 ordering the Secretary of the Department of Corrections to cease deducting funds from his inmate account for court costs, fines, and restitution. The Commonwealth Court sustained preliminary objections to the petition. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, concluding that the inmate did not have a due process right to a hearing before the Department of Corrections before the Department made deductions from his after account. The inmate had been sentenced the passage of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9728(b)(5), which provides: The 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. Any amount deducted shall be transmitted by the Department of Corrections or the county correctional facility to the probation department of the county or other agent designated by the county commissioners of the county with the approval of the president judge of the county in which the offender was convicted. The Department of Corrections shall develop guidelines relating to its responsibilities under this paragraph. The Supreme Court stated that: [a]t the time of his sentencing he was on notice of the Department’s statutory authority to deduct funds from his account. At his sentencing hearing, he had the opportunity to present evidence to persuade the court not to impose fines, costs, and restitution. He also had a right to file an appeal from that portion of the sentence. Having been convicted after the relevant provisions of Section 9728 came into effect, Appellant had notice and an opportunity to be heard at his sentencing hearing. The Department has simply carried out the lawful order of the sentencing court by establishing and following reasonable guidelines pursuant to Section 9728(b)(5). This was not the case for Mark Spotz at the time of his sentencing because 3 Counsel was the same as current counsel. -5- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 Section 9728(b)(5) of the Judicial Code had not yet been passed. He could not have been on notice of any statutory authority of the Department of Corrections to deduct funds from his inmate account for court costs. Notwithstanding, the Post-Conviction Relief Act at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9543, provides: (a) General rule.— To be eligible for relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following . . . (2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following: (i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent. (iv) The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner’s right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court. (v) Deleted. (vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced. (vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum. (viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction. The Act does not provide any basis for the relief sought in Spotz’s motion to amend his petition. As we stated in support of the order of March 2, 2004, this court -6- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 has no jurisdiction over the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the motion to amend will be denied. -7- CP-21-CR-0794-1995 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of April, 2007, the motion to amend the petition IS DENIED for post-conviction relief, . By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime M. Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Robert Brett Dunham, Esquire For Petitioner :sal -8- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : MARK NEWTON SPOTZ : CP-21-CR-0794-1995 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of April, 2007, the motion to amend the petition IS DENIED for post-conviction relief, . By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime M. Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Robert Brett Dunham, Esquire For Petitioner :sal