Opinion
J-S83043-17 No. 2238 EDA 2017
02-14-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. AKIM PIERRE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order June 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003339-2010 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Akim Pierre, appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, which dismissed his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and Act 84 motion. We affirm.
The sentencing statute referring to the collection of fines, fees and costs, at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728, is commonly known as Act 84. Subsection (b)(5) authorizes the Department of Corrections ("DOC") to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines, penalties, or any other court-ordered obligation.
The trial court opinion fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add only that we deem Appellant's notice of appeal timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Chambers , 35 A.3d 34 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012) (explaining prisoner mailbox rule provides that pro se prisoner's document is deemed filed on date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER [THE] TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN THE COURT'S FORM DC-300B REGARDING THE COMPUTATION [OF APPELLANT'S SENTENCE]?(Appellant's Brief at 3).
WHETHER [THE] TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY FINES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO ACT 84 ABSENT [A] COURT ORDER WITHOUT A HEARING ON HIS ABILITY TO PAY?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, P.J., we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, dated August 25, 2017, at 1-7) (finding: (1) although Appellant contended in his habeas corpus that his sentence is illegal, Appellant did not challenge actual sentence imposed or argue his sentence is inherently ambiguous; instead, Appellant contends DC-300B form contains ambiguity in form of clerical error; petition for writ of habeas corpus is not proper vehicle for Appellant's claim; Appellant does not challenge court's sentencing order, he challenges DC-300B form; DC-300B form is not court order imposing sentence; Appellant's challenge is to actions of government officials subsequent to sentencing; therefore, Commonwealth Court, not Court of Common Pleas, has original jurisdiction to review Appellant's DC-300B form claim; (2) Appellant is state inmate confined in state correctional institution; under Act 84, DOC makes deductions from Appellant's prison account; Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction to review Appellant's Act 84 motion; court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellant's complaints, which he must file in Commonwealth Court). Accordingly, we affirm based on the court's opinion.
See McCray v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections , 582 Pa. 440, 450, 872 A.2d 1127, 1133 (2005) (stating DOC is charged with implementing sentences); Commonwealth v. Hollawell , 604 A.2d 723, 725 (Pa.Super. 1992) (stating: "[I]f an alleged sentencing error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, the appropriate recourse would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's computation").
See Commonwealth v. Jackson , 858 A.2d 627 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Danysh , 833 A.2d 151 (Pa.Super. 2003) (holding Commonwealth Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over petitions challenging Act 84 deductions from inmates' accounts). --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/14/18
Image materials not available for display.