J-S70027-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LESLEY COLON :
:
Appellant : No. 771 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order April 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Criminal Division at No(s): 2017-05293
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2017
Appellant, Lesley Colon, appeals pro se from an order entered on
April 4, 2017, in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas. The April 4,
2017 order denied Appellant’s request to prevent the Lebanon County
Department of Corrections from making monetary deductions from his
inmate account pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728 (“Act 84”). After careful
review, we are constrained to vacate the order.
The trial court provided the following factual and procedural history of
this case:
On June 29, 2016, [Appellant] was sentenced to time
served to two years’ incarceration in a state correctional
institution for the offense of Receiving Stolen Property in
Criminal Action No. CP-38-CR-1832-2015. As part of that
sentence, [Appellant] was also ordered to pay the costs of
prosecution, a $200.00 fine, and restitution to the victim in the
amount of $300.00. Restitution was to be paid before fines and
costs. [Appellant] did not file a direct appeal of his sentence.
J-S70027-17
[Appellant] paid nothing toward his fines, costs and
restitution. Therefore, on February 15, 2017, a Praecipe to
Enter Judgment against [Appellant] in the amount of $1,387.50
in favor of the Lebanon County Probation Department was filed.
Judgment in that amount was entered by the Lebanon County
Prothonotary at this action number on February 1[5], 201[7].
This judgment represented the amount owed by [Appellant] for
the costs, fines, and restitution associated with his criminal
action. [Appellant] was sent Notice of the entry of that
judgment on February 15, 2017.
On March 29, 2017, [Appellant] filed a “Motion to Cease
Further Proceedings of Judgment as [Appellant] is Incarcerated
and Indigent (poor)” in this action. In his Motion, [Appellant]
explains that he has been incarcerated in a state correctional
facility since August 24, 2015 on a [parole] violation [on a prior
case] due to the charges brought in [the instant case] and that
his earliest possible release date is September 14, 2017, subject
to his approval for parole. He avers that he will then begin to
serve his sentence on No. 1832-2015. In his Motion, [Appellant]
requested that we defer collection of the $1,387.50 judgment
until he is released from custody. We denied [Appellant’s]
Motion by Order dated April 4, 2017[,] as we have no authority
to grant the relief requested.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/9/17, at 2-3 (footnote omitted).
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised a litany of issues.
In both Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on
appeal and statement of questions presented in his brief, Appellant provides
a rambling list of alleged errors. Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. In some
instances, Appellant purports to challenge his judgment of sentence, but
because Appellant did not pursue a direct appeal, these issues are not
properly before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Hanyon, 772 A.2d
1033, 1035 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that the failure to file a direct appeal
from the judgment of sentence amounts to waiver of any claim which could
-2-
J-S70027-17
have been raised in such an appeal). Rather, the order from which
Appellant filed the instant appeal concerns only the Department of
Corrections making deductions to Appellant’s inmate account under the
authority of Act 84.
Act 84 authorizes county probation departments or other designated
government agencies to deduct funds from an inmate’s account to pay for
outstanding fines, costs, and restitution. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 858
A.2d 627, 628 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728. In order
for Appellant to challenge these deductions, he must present his claim as a
petition for review of a governmental determination under the
Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Danysh,
833 A.2d 151, 153 (Pa. Super. 2003). “Because Commonwealth Court had
exclusive original jurisdiction, the court of common pleas lacked subject
matter jurisdiction and its order was void.” Id. at 154.
Accordingly, in the instant case, because the common pleas court did
not have jurisdiction,1 we are constrained to vacate the April 4, 2017 order
without prejudice to Appellant’s right to seek relief in the Commonwealth
Court.
____________________________________________
1 “Although the court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction,
we have appellate jurisdiction since this is an appeal from a final order.”
Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151, 152 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2003).
-3-
J-S70027-17
Order vacated. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/22/2017
-4-