Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling: Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Davis

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Davis, S. – No. 49 MAP 2019 and Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lehman, M. – No. 47 MAP 2019

,

The court consolidated the appeals of Davis and Lehman as both present the question of who is responsible for the costs of prosecution when resentencing is required.

In both cases, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Both sentences were overturned, and resentencing was required. The Supreme Court answers two questions – whether trail courts may impose the costs of sentence upon criminal defendants generally, and if so, whether the costs of resentencing may be imposed upon those whose original sentences were vacated due to their original sentences being found unconstitutional. The law allows the commonwealth to recover all “necessary expenses incurred in investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting a criminal defendant.” Further in any case where a defendant is convicted and sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, the expenses of the district attorney shall be considered a part of the costs of the case.

The court must determine whether costs associated with resentencing are necessary. The term necessary is defined as “absolutely needed” or of an inevitable nature.” The court finds that per the rules of statutory construction, the law which authorizes costs of prosecution which is penal in nature must be strictly construed in the light most favorable to the defendant. In answering the first question, imposing costs of sentencing on defendants in the first instance was proper as they were an inevitable and expected consequence once the prosecution resulted in a conviction, and therefore a necessary expense. In regard to the resentencing, the court finds that that hearing was not necessitate by the defendant’s own actions, but rather by a change in the law. The court concludes that because the defendants own actions did not cause the resentencing, the costs associated were not connected with the original prosecution and therefore the costs cannot be charged to the defendants.