Debtors’ Prison Litigation

• Commonwealth v. Ford (imposition of fines at sentencing): ACLU-PA submitted an amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to prevent courts from imposing unaffordable fines. The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot impose a discretionary fine unless the evidence before the court at sentencing shows that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine.
• Commonwealth v. May (excessive fines clause and mandatory fines): The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently denied review. As a result, it remains unresolved in Pennsylvania whether a court is required to impose a fine on an indigent defendant when the court knows that the defendant cannot afford to pay.
• Commonwealth v. DiNardo (imposition of fines): In the this case, the statute set forth a floor for the fine of $50 per offense, but the court imposed a higher amount without considering her ability to pay. That should have rendered the fine illegal because, even if the court had to impose at least $50, it was also obligated to consider her ability to pay any amount in excess of $50. The Superior Court unfortunately dismissed the appeal because Ms. DiNardo’s lawyer filed the appeal one day late. The court therefore never reached the merits of the issue.
• Commonwealth v. Cannon (imposition of fines at sentencing): As is detailed in the ACLU’s amicus curiae brief, the court incorrectly ruled that the defendant waived any argument about the fine because his counsel failed to raise it with the trial court. The Superior Court misunderstood that Cannon’s argument fell within the scope of a legality-of-the-sentence claim that cannot be waived. The brief explains the nuanced distinctions between the various types of arguments about whether a fine is lawful, categorizing them between ones that can and cannot be waived. Unfortunately, the Superior Court denied reconsideration without clarification.
• Commonwealth v. Lopez (imposition of costs at sentencing): Both the Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that sentencing courts have the statutory and rules-based authority to reduce or waive court costs at the time of sentencing if a defendant is unable to afford to pay those costs. However, sentencing courts have no obligation to exercise that authority if they choose not to. The result is broader flexibility for courts to avoid having to burden indigent defendants with unaffordable costs.
• McFalls v. 38th Judicial District (imposition of duplicate court costs without statutory authorization): In this impact litigation against the 38th Judicial District and Clerk of Courts in Montgomery County, we are challenging the practice whereby the court illegally double-bills defendants by charging them more than one set of court costs per case. The court and clerk in that case have a practice of imposing costs once per charge, rather than just once per case as required by law. To make matters worse, the clerk is also not giving defendants timely notice of the costs imposed against them, so they are unaware that they have been illegally billed. The summary judgment briefing includes an extensive analysis of the statutory authority for the imposition of dozens of court costs in Pennsylvania.
• Commonwealth v. Black (imposition of costs without a statutory basis): Weeks after sentencing, the clerk’s office assessed certain court costs and prepared a bill of costs but did not provide it to the defendant. Some of these costs were imposed without statutory authority to impose them. Because the time to file a post-sentencing motion had already passed, the defendant’s counsel - who learned of these costs by happenstance - filed an appeal within the timeframe to do so. The Superior Court refused to consider the appeal, reasoning that the defendant should have first somehow raised this issue with the trial court, even though the costs were not assessed until weeks after sentencing and in violation of due process by failing to notify the defendant.
• Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Lehman (costs of resentencing juvenile lifers): The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that individuals who were given life sentences while juveniles could not be required to pay the costs of re-sentencing them after their original sentences were ruled unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that, although defendants generally have to pay the costs of sentencing, this does not apply when they are resentenced through no fault of their own but instead because of a change in the law.
• Commonwealth v. Petrick (discharging restitution through bankruptcy): The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that an individual may not rely on a prior bankruptcy decision to eliminate the obligation to pay restitution that is later imposed by a criminal court at sentencing. The Court reasoned that restitution is rehabilitative in nature, and thus federal law does not permit its discharge.

• Commonwealth v. Marshall and Commonwealth v. Bates (probation extension for nonpayment in Allegheny and Delaware counties): In these cases, the Superior Court ruled that a defendant cannot have probation revoked and a new sentence of probation imposed for nonpayment of fines, costs, or restitution unless the trial court first considers the defendant’s ability to pay and determines that the nonpayment was willful. These decisions, while unpublished, correctly reflect that numerous prior published court decisions prohibit any form of punishment for nonpayment absent the finding of willfulness.
• Commonwealth v. Bivins (probation revocation for nonpayment in Allegheny County): Applying existing case law, the Superior Court ruled that probation could not be revoked for nonpayment of restitution unless the court first considers the defendant’s ability to pay and finds that the nonpayment was willful. The incarceration that the defendant suffered was therefore illegal.
• Commonwealth v. Hudson (probation revocation for nonpayment of costs): The Superior Court ruled that the statute governing probation does not allow a court to make payment of court costs a condition of probation. It accordingly overturned a trial court decision that revoked the defendant’s probation and jailed him for his inability to pay costs, since that requirement was never valid in the first place. This makes costs distinct from fines and restitution in the probation context, since the statute governing probation does permit a court to make the payment of fines and restitution a condition of probation.
• Commonwealth v. Diaz and Commonwealth v. Smetana: ACLU-PA cases, where Mr. Diaz and Mr. Smetana were illegally jailed in Lebanon County for nonpayment of fines and costs.
• Commonwealth v. Mauk: ACLU-PA case, where Mr. Mauk was illegally jailed in Cambria County for nonpayment of fines and costs.
• Vega-Torres Judicial Conduct Complaint (judicial ethics complaint in Berks County): After being illegally jailed by a magisterial district judge, the defendant was able to obtain release through a writ of habeas corpus from a common pleas court. In the judicial ethics complaint that followed - which resulted in the judge being sanctioned - the defendant set forth the nine separate ways in which the judge violated the law in his case, including both the illegal incarceration and over-billing him court costs.
• B.A.W. v. T.L.W. (domestic relations contempt for nonpayment): In this domestic relations case, the Superior Court ruled that the finding of contempt and order of incarceration for nonpayment of certain court-ordered expenses was invalid for three reasons. First, the parent had a fundamental right to counsel before being incarcerated. Second, the trial court did not consider the parent’s ability to pay. Third, the trial court relied on factual findings from a hearing officer, rather than conducting its own hearing. The amicus brief from the ACLU and the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel walks through an Edmunds analysis for why there is a right to counsel under the Pennsylvania Constitution even if there is not a federal right.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has been winning in court and ensuring that Pennsylvanians who are unable to pay the entire amount of restitution while on probation or parole are not trapped on court supervision because of their poverty. Read more of these cases here!