THE COURTS

Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[234 PA. CODE CH. 4]

Assessment and Collection of Fees in Summary Cases on Appeal for a Trial De Novo

[33 Pa.B. 6407]

   The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania revise the Comment to Rule 462 (Trial de novo) to clarify how fees in summary cases are to be assessed. This revision would make it clear that fees and costs assessed in summary cases may be assessed only once, either by the district justice at the conclusion of the summary case or by the common pleas court at the trial de novo. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

   The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. Please note that the Committee's Report should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Reports.

   The text of the proposed rule changes precedes the Report. Additions are shown in bold.

   We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal in writing to the Committee through counsel,

Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road, Suite 800
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
fax: (717) 795-2106
e-mail: criminal.rules@pacourts.us

no later than Friday, January 23, 2004.

By the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee

JOHN J. DRISCOLL,   
Chair

Annex A

TITLE 234.  RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 4.  PROCEDURES IN SUMMARY CASES

PART F.  Procedures in Summary Cases Under the Vehicle Code

Rule 462.  Trial De Novo.

*      *      *      *      *

   (G)  At the time of sentencing, the trial judge shall:

   (1)  if the defendant's sentence includes restitution, a fine, or costs and fees, state the date on which payment is due. If the defendant is without the financial means to pay the amount in a single remittance, the trial judge may provide for installment payments and shall state the date on which each installment is due;

*      *      *      *      *

   (H)  After sentence is imposed by the trial judge, the case shall remain in the court of common pleas for the execution of sentence, including the collection of any fine and restitution, and for the collection of any costs and fees.

Comment

*      *      *      *      *

   Once sentence is imposed, paragraph (H) makes it clear that the case is to remain in the court of common pleas for execution of the sentence and collection of any costs or fees in the case that were not collected by the district justice, and the case may not be returned to the district justice. The execution of sentence includes the collection of any fines and restitution.

   Costs and fees authorized by law are to be assessed against a defendant on a per case basis. When a defendant appeals a summary conviction for a trial de novo in the court of common pleas, this is the same case that was before the district justice. Therefore, any costs and fees in the case may be assessed and collected only once, either by the district justice at the conclusion of the summary trial or in the court of common pleas following a trial de novo.

   Official Note:  Former Rule 86 adopted July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; revised September 23, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; the January 1, 1986 effective dates extended to July 1, 1986; amended February 2, 1989, effective March 1, 1989; amended March 22, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; amended October 28, 1994, effective as to cases instituted on or after January 1, 1995; amended February 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; amended October 1, 1997, effective October 1, 1998; amended May 14, 1999, effective July 1, 1999; rescinded March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001, and paragraph (G) replaced by Rule 462. New Rule 462 adopted March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended February 26, 2003, effective July 1, 2003; amended ____, 2004, effective ____ , 2004.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

*      *      *      *      *

NEW RULE 462:

*      *      *      *      *

   Report explaining the proposed changes concerning fees and costs in summary cases appealed for a trial de novo published at 33 Pa.B. 6408 (December 27, 2003).

REPORT

Rule 462 Comment Revision

ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF FEES IN SUMMARY CASES ON APPEAL FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO

   The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is proposing the Court make changes to Rule 462 (Trial de novo) to make it clear that fees and costs assessed against a defendant in a summary case may be assessed only once, either by the district justice at the conclusion of the summary case or by the common pleas court at the trial de novo. These changes clarify in the Rule 462 Comment the intent of the summary case rules that a summary case that is appealed for a trial de novo is the same case as the summary case before the district justice.

   The Committee received an inquiry concerning whether the practice in some judicial districts of collecting two Judicial Computer Project (JCP) fees--one when a defendant is convicted by a district justice, and the second when the defendant is convicted following a trial de novo in the court of common pleas--conflicts with the Criminal Rules. In determining how to respond to the inquiry, the Committee looked at the Committee rule history and noted that the rules always have intended that the right to a trial de novo in the court of common pleas following a summary conviction is considered to be the same as though the defendant never had been tried and convicted at the district justice level; i.e., the case essentially starts over with the appeal, so there is only one case. We also reviewed 42 Pa.C.S. § 3733 (Deposits into account) (relating to the Judicial Computer Augmentation Account), and concluded this statute does not address nor sanction specifically the practice of twice assessing the fee when a summary case is appealed to the court of common pleas for a trial de novo.¹

   In view of the Committee's determination that when a summary case is appealed to the common pleas court for a trial de novo, the trial in common pleas is the same case and any fees and costs in the case should not be assessed against the defendant two times, and the fact that some judicial districts are assessing these costs and fees twice, we agreed the issue should be made clearer by adding language to the Rule 462 Comment encompassing the concept that the trial de novo is not a new case but is a continuation of the original case and consequently any costs and fees assessed to the case may be assessed one time only; therefore, any fees or costs that are charged to a case when it is at the district justice level may not be also charged at the court of common pleas level when the case is appealed for a trial de novo.

   Accordingly, the Committee is proposing the addition of the following language as a new paragraph in the Rule 462 Comment:

Costs and fees authorized by law are to be assessed against a defendant on a per case basis. When a defendant appeals a summary conviction for a trial de novo in the court of common pleas, this is the same case that was before the district justice. Therefore, any costs and fees in the case may be assessed and collected only once, either by the district justice at the conclusion of the summary trial or in the court of common pleas following a trial de novo.²

 

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-2442. Filed for public inspection December 26, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]

_______

¹  During the course of our consideration, the Committee realized that the issue is broader than the assessment of only the JCP fee and applies to any costs and fees that are assessed.

²  We also are proposing that ''and fees'' be added following ''costs'' in paragraphs (G) and (H) of the rule.

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---