HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2116-20, 22 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
JOSEPH WILLIAM WATKINS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-2116 CRIMINAL
98-2117 CRIMINAL
98-2118 CRIMINAL
98-2119 CRIM~AL
98-2120 CRIMINAL
98-2122 CRIMINAL
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
In this case, following trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of twenty-four counts of
harassment by communication. On September 14, 1999, the defendant was sentenced to a term
of imprisonment. His conviction was upheld in the Superior Court by a memorandum opinion
filed in October of 2000. The defendant has since filed a motion to direct the Clerk of Courts to
refrain from the collection of court costs. His motion in that regard was denied on February 13,
2001, and the defendant has appealed. In his statement of matters complained of on appeal, the
defendant contends that we erred in that there was no legal authority for the assessment of court
costs and specifically'
5. The defendant believes that absent a specific
provision in the sentencing order from the court,
that the collection of court costs from him in
connection with this [sic] convictions at the above
terms and numbers is illegal.
At the initial sentence pronounced by the court, we imposed consecutive sentences of six
months to two years on the first twelve of twenty-four counts for a total of not less than six nor
more than twenty-four years. On the second twelve counts a similar sentence was imposed but
made to run concurrent with the sentences on the first twelve counts. The aggregate sentence
imposed in the case on all counts was not less than six nor more than twenty-four years. It was
98-2116, 98-2117, 98-2118, 98-2119, 98-2120, 98-2122 CRIMINAL
in the course of sentencing on the second twelve counts that we directed the defendant to pay the
costs of prosecution. After sentencing, the court r~alized that it had imposed sentences on
individual counts which exceeded the statutory maximum for misdemeanors of the third degree.
The defendant was brought back to the courtroom and the following modification made with
respect to the sentence.
THE COURT: ...and my sentence in this case
remains the same. However, it will be structured
differently. So that on each count is not less than
three nor more than twelve months. And all counts
to run consecutive one with the other. For, again,
an aggregate sentence of not less than six nor more
than twenty-four years.
It is plain that the defendant was sentenced to pay costs in this case. Admittedly, the
costs of prosecution were mentioned in connection with the second set of twelve counts. It is
illogical to assume that the direction to pay costs extended to only half of the charges.
In any event, we are satisfied that a criminal conviction results, implicitly, in a liability
for the payment of costs of prosecution. As noted by the Superior Court:
A defendant who has been convicted of a crime, is
liable for the costs of prosecution, as authorized by
statute. Commonwealth v. Coder, 490 Pa. 194, 415
A.,2d 406 (1980) (citing Commonwealth v. Coder,
252 Pa. Super. 508, 519, 382 A.2d 131,137 (1977)
(CERCONE, J. dissenting)); Commonwealth v.
Bollinger, 274 Pa. Super. 112, 418 A.2d 320
(1979). See generally 9 Pa. Law Encyclopedia §
92. The defendant's liability for costs is not part of
the punishment for the offense, and it is not a
sentence to pay something additional to any
penalty imposed by law. Commonwealth v.
98-2116, 98-2117, 98-2118, 98-2119, 98-2120, 98-2122 CRIMINAL
Bollinger, 274 Pa. Super. 112, 418 A.2d 320
(1979). See also 9 Pa. Law Encyclopedia § 92.
Instead, the costs of prosecution are incident to
judgment. Bollinger, 274 Pa. Super. 112, 418 A.2d
320. See generally 9 Pa. Law Encyclopedia § 92.
Com. v. Ciptak, 657 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Pa. Super. 1995).
We continue to believe that the actions of the Clerk of Courts, in collecting costs in this
case, is proper.
April o~q ,2001
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Michael Scherer, Esquire
Court-appointed for the Defendant
:rlm
B Y THE COURT,
Keyfn A. Hess, J.
/