L. L. Greer v. Comwlth of PA (DOC) (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Larry L. Greer, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections (D.O.C), Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 43 M.D. 2008 Submitted: June 13, 2008 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY Before this Court FILED: July 25, 2008 are the preliminary objections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections (DOC) to Larry L. Greer s (Greer) petition for review in this Court s original jurisdiction. Greer is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), serving a term of thirty-one to sixty-two years for kidnapping and other offenses. Greer alleges that DOC is garnishing his inmate account, without authority, to pay court costs related to his criminal convictions. On December 30, 2004, DOC started to garnish Greer s inmate account to satisfy what it termed Court ordered obligations. Section 4 of Act 84 of 1998, Act of June 18, 1998, P.L. 640, commonly referred to as Act 84, which amended Section 9728 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §9728, provides in pertinent part: (3) The county clerk of courts shall, upon sentencing, pretrial disposition or other order, transmit to the Department of Probation of the respective county or other agent designated by the county commissioners of the county with the approval of the president judge of the county and to the county correctional facility to which the offender has been sentenced or to the Department of Corrections, whichever is appropriate, copies of all orders for restitution and amendments or alterations thereto, reparation, fees, costs, fines and penalties. .... (5) The county correctional facility to which the offender has been sentenced or the Department of Corrections shall be authorized to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation. Any amount deducted shall be transmitted by the Department of Corrections or the county correctional facility to the probation department of the county or other agent designated by the county commissioners of the county with the approval of the president judge of the county in which the offender was convicted. The Department of Corrections shall develop guidelines relating to its responsibilities under this paragraph. On May 10, 2005, Greer submitted an Inmate s Request to Staff Member concerning the deduction of funds from his account. Greer alleged that he was never informed that the deduction would occur, did not agree to it, and wished to know the balance owed and to whom the funds were sent. The staff member, Ms. Orndoff responded on May 16, 2005: We were given a court order from York County stating you owe $8989.75 in court costs as a result of your arrest/conviction. They should have given you a copy of the order, but if not, you will need to write to York County Clerk of Courts to get a copy. You have paid $109.65 and still have a balance due of $8880.10. Inmate s Request to Staff Member, May 16, 2005, at 1. 2 On May 24, 2005, Greer submitted an official inmate grievance. Grievance Officer M.P. Toski (Grievance Officer Toski) denied the grievance and informed Greer that his account was correctly assessed. Greer appealed the response to Superintendent Raymond J. Sobina of SCI-Forest, who sustained the denial by Grievance Officer Toski. Greer requested final review from the DOC Secretary s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals. By letter dated July 31, 2006, Chief Grievance Officer Sharon M. Burks denied Greer s request for final review.1 On January 28, 2008, Greer petitioned for review in this Court s original jurisdiction and alleges that DOC is violating Greer s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution because DOC is not authorized to garnish his inmate account. DOC preliminarily objects in the nature of a demurrer on the basis that Greer fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: 5. Upon request, Jaime Wilson, Corrections Records Specialist I, has provided an Unsworn Declaration together with true and correct copies of Petitioner s [Greer] DC-300B(s), Court Commitment Orders, which reflect the amount of court-ordered monetary obligations 1 On January 25, 2007, Greer moved to suspend the costs/fees assessed by the Court of Common Pleas of York County (Sentencing Court) and asserted that costs/fees related to his convictions in the Sentencing Court be suspended or set aside because Greer was ineligible for any work details at SCI-Forrest and was indigent. On February 26, 2007, the Sentencing Court denied his motion. Greer appealed to our Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed. Commonwealth v. Greer, 944 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 2007). This matter is not before this Court. 3 in the nature of fines, costs, and restitution. . . . These order(s) disclose that Petitioner s [Greer] sentencing court(s) imposed a financial obligation upon him in addition to a term of sentence(s). 6. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the records for the purpose of ascertaining whether the courtordered obligations include fines, costs, and/or restitution. . . . 7. The Court is also requested to take judicial notice of the Department s Administrative Directive DC-ADM 005, entitled Collection of Inmate Debts ( Policy 005 ). ... .... 9. To the extent that the Petitioner [Greer] claims there was a violation of procedural due process, it has been held that although prisoners have a property in their accounts, [and] inmates are entitled to due process with respect to any deprivation of this money, no specific judicial determination of ability to pay is required before deductions because the inmate s sentencing hearing provided him with the required pre-deprivation due process. . . . 10. To the extent Petitioner [Greer] is claiming that the Department s actions were not authorized by law, it has been recognized that the Department [DOC] was directed to establish guidelines by the General Assembly and it issued Administrative Directive DC-ADM 005, entitled Collection of Inmate Debt in compliance with the legislative directive. . . . 11. To the extent the Petitioner [Greer] is alleging that he was entitled to an ability to pay hearing before the deductions began, [t]he Legislature recognized that the deducted amounts [are] relatively small and that it was impractical and burdensome for trial courts to conduct an ability to pay hearing anytime the funds in an inmate s account fluctuated. . . . The law does not impose prior court authorization as a threshold condition, and that an inmate is not entitled to a hearing on the issue of his ability to pay unless the Commonwealth initiates an 4 enforcement action for unpaid fines or where the inmate is in default. . . . 12. [I]n an action in mandamus involving an administrative agency s exercise of discretion, the court may only direct the agency to perform the discretionary act and may not direct the agency to exercise its judgment in any particular way or direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken. . . . 13. Because Petitioner [Greer] cannot establish all elements necessary to establish a prima facie case against the Respondent [DOC] and the purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights already established beyond peradventure. . ., he is not entitled to the issuance of a mandamus writ. (Citations and footnotes omitted). Respondent s Preliminary Objections, March 6, 2008, Paragraphs 5-7, 9-13 at 2-5. DOC also preliminarily objects on the basis that Greer is not entitled to enjoin DOC from carrying out its statutorily mandated duty to deduct the Act 84 funds and that Greer is not entitled to reimbursement from DOC. When considering preliminary objections this Court must consider as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the petitioner s petition and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Mulholland v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 405 Pa. 268, 271-272, 174 A.2d 861, 863 (1961). Preliminary objections should be sustained only in cases clear and free from doubt that the facts pleaded are legally insufficient to establish a right to relief. Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570, 681 A.2d 1331 (1996). 5 Mandamus is an extraordinary writ designed to compel performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there exists a clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant and want of any other adequate and appropriate remedy. Princeton Sportswear Corp. v. Redevelopment Authority, 460 Pa. 274, 333 A.2d 473 (1975). DOC first asserts that there is no requirement for a specific sentencing court order to authorize DOC to deduct money from an inmate s account for nonwaivable statutory costs associated with an inmate s criminal sentence. DOC asserts that the DC-300B forms attached as Exhibit A to DOC s preliminary objections reflect the amount of court-ordered monetary obligations in the nature of fines, costs, and restitution. In Boyd v. Department of Corrections, 831 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), affirmed, 584 Pa. 540, 886 A.2d 222 (2005), Alonzo R. Boyd (Boyd), an inmate at the State Regional Correctional Facility at Mercer (SRCF-Mercer), had been sentenced to a two to five year term and also was ordered to pay fines, costs, and restitution. DOC deducted funds from his inmate account. Boyd grieved the deductions. His grievance was denied by the grievance officer. superintendent of SRCF-Mercer denied his appeal. The Before Boyd received a determination from the Office of Grievances and Appeals he petitioned for review in the nature of mandamus in this Court s original jurisdiction. Among the issues Boyd raised was that the deduction of monies from his inmate account without the authority of a court order violated his due process rights. This Court stayed the matter pending outcome of the Office of Grievance and Appeals final disposition. 6 The Office of Grievances and Appeals denied Boyd s appeal. Boyd, 831 A.2d at 781-782. Boyd had asserted that the Court commitment order Form DC-300B did not authorize DOC to deduct any money from his inmate account for payment of fines, costs, and restitution because it was not a judgment decree signed by a duly authorized judge. Boyd, 831 A.2d at 782. DOC preliminarily objected on the basis that Act 84 authorized the deductions from his inmate account and directed DOC to establish guidelines to carry out its responsibilities. DOC established policy DC-ADM 005, which provided that the business office will deduct from an inmate s account monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month s income provided the account balance exceeds $10.00. Boyd, 831 A.2d at 782-783. This Court dismissed Boyd s petition: Because the Department is authorized to make monetary deductions from an inmate s personal account for the purposes of collecting restitution as well as fines and costs, which were imposed by the sentencing court, and is authorized to develop guidelines for making such deductions. . . . (Footnote omitted). Boyd, 831 A.2d at 783. This Court also noted that even though the Court Commitment Order, Form DC-300B was completed by the clerk and not the sentencing judge, DOC did not err in relying on that form which indicated that Boyd had been ordered to pay $5,000.00 in fines, $335.20 in costs and $3,240.00 in restitution. Boyd, 831 A.2d at 783 n. 6. 7 Here, as in Boyd, DOC is authorized to deduct monies from Greer s inmate account if he has outstanding fines, costs, and/or restitution. Under DOC s policy, DC-ADM 005, DOC has established guidelines to collect the debts of inmates as authorized under Act 84. DOC attached a copy of the Court Commitment Order, Form DC-300B for Greer s kidnapping conviction. The Court Commitment Order lists costs of $1,797.95 to be paid by Greer.2 Although the Court Commitment Order was not signed by a judge, this Court has determined that DOC may rely on the authority bestowed by Act 84 to calculate the amount an inmate owes. Further, DOC has the authority under Act 84 to deduct the funds from Greer s inmate account. Boyd. Additionally, in Commonwealth v. LeBar, 860 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2004), our Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that an inmate is liable for the mandatory statutory assessment of costs contained in Section 1101 of the Crime Victims Act, Act of November 24, 1998, P.L. 882, as amended, 18 P.S. §11.1101, even if there is no court order specifying the amount. Our Superior Court further determined in LeBar that DOC had the authority to make deductions under Act 84 where non-waivable costs are involved. This Court agrees with the reasoning in LeBar and Boyd and finds that DOC properly deducted the funds from Greer s inmate account. 2 While this amount does not correspond to the total amount of $8,989.75 which Ms. Orndoff stated that Greer owed, it is probable that additional amounts are listed on other Court Commitment Forms for Greer s five other convictions for which he was sentenced to consecutive terms to this sentence and which are not included in Exhibit A to DOC s preliminary objections. However, the amount owed goes to the question of how long DOC may deduct funds from Greer s inmate account until his debts are paid, not whether DOC is authorized to make the deductions. 8 DOC also asserts that it did not deny Greer his right to due process when it made the deductions from his inmate account to pay his court costs without an ability-to-pay hearing. This Court agrees. In Buck v. Beard, 583 Pa. 431, 879 A.2d 157 (2005), our Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that an inmate s sentencing hearing afforded him the necessary due process and it was not necessary to conduct a hearing before DOC deducted money from an inmate s account to satisfy costs, fines, and/or restitution owed. Accordingly, this Court agrees that Greer fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, sustains DOC s preliminary objection, and dismisses Greer s petition with prejudice. ____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 9 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Larry L. Greer, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections (D.O.C), Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 43 M.D. 2008 ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2008, this Court sustains the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections preliminary objection that Larry L. Greer fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and dismisses Greer s petition with prejudice. ____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.