J-S74007-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAMES DANIEL SPORISH :
:
Appellant : No. 2326 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-CR-0003043-2006
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 11, 2019
James Daniel Sporish appeals, pro se, from the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County denying his “Motion to Strike the Court
Clerk’s Cost Assessment.” After our review, we conclude the court of common
pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, we vacate its order.1
On October 26, 2006, a jury found appellant guilty of rape, aggravated
assault, sexual assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, and indecent
____________________________________________
1 Although the court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction, this
Court has appellate jurisdiction because the appeal is from a final order. See
Pa.R.A.P. 341(a), (b)(1). “This situation is analogous to where the common
pleas court has properly sustained preliminary objections to subject matter
jurisdiction. An appeal to this Court is proper even though the lower court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, since otherwise, we could never (at least
theoretically) review such an order.” Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d
151, 152 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2003). See also Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum,
L.P., 767 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 2001).
J-S74007-18
assault in connection with a savage attack on his paramour. On February 20,
2007, the court sentenced Sporish to 210 to 540 months’ imprisonment (17½
to 45 years).2 The sentencing judge also imposed upon Sporish the costs of
prosecution. See Certificate of Imposition of Judgment of Sentence, 2/20/07.
On February 15, 2018, the Department of Corrections (DOC) informed
Sporish that, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728(b)(5), it would begin making
deductions from his inmate account to satisfy his obligations. This statute,
commonly referred to as Act 84, governs the collection of fines and costs, and
it authorizes the DOC to make monetary deductions from an inmate’s account
to pay court-ordered fines and costs. Id.
On June 17, 2018, Sporish filed a motion/complaint in mandamus
seeking to end the Act 84 deductions. The Honorable John P. Capozzi, Sr.,
denied Sporish’s motion. This appeal followed.
In Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. 2003), this
Court, addressing Danysh’s appeal from the trial court’s order denying his
motion to stop Act 84 deductions, stated:
The Commonwealth Court possesses both original and appellate
jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction is invoked in various classes
of cases; relevant here is its original jurisdiction over civil suits
against statewide governmental actors.[] See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
761(a); see, e.g., Harvey v. Department of Corrections, 823
A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (exerting original jurisdiction over
petition for review seeking injunction against DOC to stop Act 84
____________________________________________
2On August 7, 2008, this Court affirmed Sporish’s judgment of sentence, and
on July 22, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Sporish, 961 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 981 A.2d 219 (Pa. 2009).
-2-
J-S74007-18
deductions). Danysh’s civil action is against the Commonwealth
government, as DOC falls within the jurisdictional statute’s
definition of that term. DOC is an administrative agency within
the Executive Branch, see 71 P.S. § 61 (creating DOC among
other executive departments), and possesses authority to operate
the State Correctional Institutions throughout the state. See 71
P.S. §§ 310-0, 310-1. As operator of the State Correctional
Institutions, it has a wide range of responsibilities relating to the
care and treatment of inmates and management of the state
prisons. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.1 (relating to developing
treatment for sexual offenders), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721 (giving DOC
ultimate decision whether offender will be accepted to boot
camp); 61 P.S. § 390.301 (authorizing DOC to lease or purchase
three 1,000-cell prisons, two of which may be “anywhere in this
Commonwealth”). Since DOC effectuates policy decisions
throughout Pennsylvania, Danysh's claim against DOC “is an
action against the Commonwealth government for the purposes
of determining [Commonwealth Court's] original jurisdiction.”
[State Board of Dentistry v.] Weltman, 649 A.2d 478, 479 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1994) (holding court of common pleas lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to grant injunction against agency with
statewide authority).
Danysh, 833 A.2d at 153 (footnote omitted).
In relevant part, section 761(a) of the Judicial Code provides:
(a) General rule.--The Commonwealth Court shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings:
(1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any
officer thereof, acting in his official capacity[.]
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a). Reasoning that Danysh had instituted a civil action
within the meaning of section 761(a), this Court determined that Danysh
should have brought his petition as a petition for review of a governmental
determination under Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. Danysh,
833 A.2d at 153. See Pa.R.A.P. 1501-1561. We concluded that
Commonwealth Court had exclusive original jurisdiction and, therefore, the
-3-
J-S74007-18
court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction and its order was
void.3 Id. at 154.4
In Commonwealth v. Jackson, 858 A.2d 627 (Pa. Super. 2004), this
Court, sitting en banc, reaffirmed Danysh. There, Jackson appealed from the
court of common pleas’ order that concluded it lacked jurisdiction to address
the merits of his petition to stop Act 84 deductions. Applying the Danysh
reasoning, the Jackson Court affirmed, stating, “[t]here is no evidence,
however, that these deductions are being made pursuant to a request by the
District Attorney of York County or pursuant to an enforcement order of the
trial court. Thus, the Commonwealth Court, not the trial court, had original
jurisdiction over [Jackson’s] petition.” 858 A.2d at 630, citing Danysh, 833
A.2d at 154. See also Commonwealth v. Parella, 834 A.2d 1253, 1255–
____________________________________________
3 In Danysh, we observed that in a limited class of cases, a defendant would
properly seek the relief at issue in the common pleas court. We stated:
This situation would occur where the defendant was in a county
prison. Because the county authorities would not have statewide
jurisdiction, the matter would fall outside Commonwealth Court’s
jurisdiction. That would leave it squarely within the courts of
common pleas’ original jurisdiction. Whether by inadvertence or
design, the statutes clearly spell out a different procedure where
the defendant is incarcerated in a county facility. The General
Assembly, as one of the democratic branches of government, has
established the courts’ respective jurisdictions and we cannot
modify its scheme, once properly established.
833 A.2d at 154. Here, like in Danysh, Sporish is incarcerated in a state
correctional institution.
4 Subsequent to this Court’s decision, Danysh did file a petition for review in
the Commonwealth Court. See Danysh v. Dept. of Corrections, 845 A.2d
260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
-4-
J-S74007-18
56 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (vacating trial court's order denying motion of inmate,
serving ten to twenty year term of incarceration in state correctional
institution, to stop Act 84 deductions because Commonwealth Court has
original jurisdiction; however, “where the method by which an inmate seeks
to end Act 84 deductions involves the validity or modification of the underlying
sentence, original jurisdiction lies with the common pleas court” regardless of
inmate’s place of confinement).
Similarly, here, Sporish has instituted a civil action within the meaning
of section 761(a). Sporish should have filed his petition for review of this
governmental determination by the DOC with the Commonwealth Court,
naming not only the Commonwealth but also an agency of the Commonwealth
(the DOC) or an officer thereof, as respondent.
Because exclusive jurisdiction lies with Commonwealth Court, the court
of common pleas had no jurisdiction to review the merits of Sporish’s petition.
We, therefore, vacate the court’s order without prejudice to seek relief in
Commonwealth Court. Jackson, supra; Danysh, supra.
Order vacated.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/11/19
-5-