×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Cost of Prosecuting Prisoner Crimes In Pennsylvania Prisons Must Be Paid By State
Cost of Prosecuting Prisoner Crimes In Pennsylvania Prisons Must Be Paid By
State
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed an appellate court ruling that
the State must reimburse counties for prosecution costs related to crimes
committed by prisoners while in State prisons. Montgomery County, and 20
other Pennsylvania counties, filed a State court petition for declaratory
judgment against the State Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging that a
legislative amendment in 2000 mandated the State bear these expenses. The
counties filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
In its Answer, the DOC argued that the 2000 legislative amendment (ACT 107)
only applied to costs with crimes related to escapes, as stated in the
original 1913 Act. The counties argued that subsequent amendments to the
1913 Act, and Act 107, altered the statutory language such that the State
would be responsible for expenses associated with prosecuting crimes
committed by State prisoners in State custody.
The Court held that the language in the 1913 Act, and subsequent amendments
thereto, were ambiguous and must be interpreted by rules of statutory
construction. The Court reasoned that a related Act (122) was enacted on
the same date as Act 107, which shifted the maintenance costs of prisoners
who commit crimes in prison from counties to the State. The evidence showed
that Act 107 changed only the designation of the party responsible to pay
prosecution costs associated with new crimes of prisoners in State prisons,
not the nature of the costs. See: Montgomery County v. Department of
Corrections, 879 A.2d 843 (Penn. App2005), aff'd 901 A.2d 494 (Penn. S.Ct.
2006).
State
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed an appellate court ruling that
the State must reimburse counties for prosecution costs related to crimes
committed by prisoners while in State prisons. Montgomery County, and 20
other Pennsylvania counties, filed a State court petition for declaratory
judgment against the State Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging that a
legislative amendment in 2000 mandated the State bear these expenses. The
counties filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
In its Answer, the DOC argued that the 2000 legislative amendment (ACT 107)
only applied to costs with crimes related to escapes, as stated in the
original 1913 Act. The counties argued that subsequent amendments to the
1913 Act, and Act 107, altered the statutory language such that the State
would be responsible for expenses associated with prosecuting crimes
committed by State prisoners in State custody.
The Court held that the language in the 1913 Act, and subsequent amendments
thereto, were ambiguous and must be interpreted by rules of statutory
construction. The Court reasoned that a related Act (122) was enacted on
the same date as Act 107, which shifted the maintenance costs of prisoners
who commit crimes in prison from counties to the State. The evidence showed
that Act 107 changed only the designation of the party responsible to pay
prosecution costs associated with new crimes of prisoners in State prisons,
not the nature of the costs. See: Montgomery County v. Department of
Corrections, 879 A.2d 843 (Penn. App2005), aff'd 901 A.2d 494 (Penn. S.Ct.
2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Montgomery County v. Department of Corrections
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 879 A.2d 843 (Penn. App2005), affd 901 A.2d 494 |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Montgomery County v. Dep't of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 901 A.2d 494 (Pa. 07/18/2006)
[1] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
[2] No. 95 MAP 2005
[3] 901 A.2d 494, 2006.PA
[4] July 18, 2006
[5] MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, CAMBRIA COUNTY, CENTRE COUNTY, CLEARFIELD COUNTY, CRAWFORD COUNTY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DELAWARE COUNTY, ERIE COUNTY, FAYETTE COUNTY, GREENE COUNTY, HUNTINGDON COUNTY, INDIANA COUNTY, LUZERNE COUNTY, MERCER COUNTY, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, SOMERSET COUNTY, WAYNE COUNTY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTY, APPELLEES
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on July 22, 2005, at No. 499 MD 2004.
[7] Per curiam.
[8] ORDER
[9] AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2006, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
[1] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
[2] No. 95 MAP 2005
[3] 901 A.2d 494, 2006.PA
[4] July 18, 2006
[5] MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, CAMBRIA COUNTY, CENTRE COUNTY, CLEARFIELD COUNTY, CRAWFORD COUNTY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DELAWARE COUNTY, ERIE COUNTY, FAYETTE COUNTY, GREENE COUNTY, HUNTINGDON COUNTY, INDIANA COUNTY, LUZERNE COUNTY, MERCER COUNTY, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, SOMERSET COUNTY, WAYNE COUNTY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTY, APPELLEES
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on July 22, 2005, at No. 499 MD 2004.
[7] Per curiam.
[8] ORDER
[9] AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2006, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.