For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 4 - 54

Waiving Fines and Court Costs
After Commonwealth v. Lopez and
Subsequent Statutory Amendments
Andrew Christy
T
he Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent ruling in
Commonwealth v. Lopez1
wraps up a years-long effort
by criminal defense attorneys from around the state to
require common pleas judges to reduce court costs at sentencing
for defendants who cannot afford them. The case did not result
in the hoped-for home run, but it confirms the power of common
pleas judges to reduce or waive all costs at sentencing and, for
the first time, mandates that they consider such action after
sentencing when a defendant proves unable to pay and defaults
on payment.
The Lopez decision only addressed court costs and not fines,
but the legislature subsequently made beneficial changes to the
way that both fines and costs are collected. Under Act 163 of
2022,2
Background on Court Costs in Pennsylvania
In addition to the incarceration, probation, and fines or
restitution portions of the sentence, almost every case includes a
requirement to pay court costs. If the defendant cannot pay them,
that can-and in some counties, often does-lead to significant
harms down the road, even years after a person is out of jail and
no longer on probation.
courts of common pleas and magisterial district courts now
have express statutory authority in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9730 to reduce or
waive all fines and costs (with one exception) in both summary
and criminal cases when a defendant is unable to pay.
The ramifications of Lopez and the amendment to Section 9730
can be life-changing for indigent defendants by offering a way to
end the cycle of nonpayment and punishment. This article will
briefly review what court costs are and how they are imposed,
recount the history and arguments raised in the Lopez case,
and offer legal and factual support for defendants and defense
counsel seeking to reduce the potentially catastrophic burden of
54 For The Defense l Vol. 7, Issue 4
Statewide, the costs a defendant owes following sentencing
usually run about $1,000 for low-income individuals represented
by a public defender or other court-appointed counsel.3
These
costs are automatically imposed, even if a judge does not
specifically order their imposition (although as is discussed below,
a judge can reduce or waive those costs). Often, the judge simply
says that the defendant must " pay costs, " without an explanation
of which costs or in which amounts, and defendants rarely receive
notice of the specific costs they must pay. Sometimes referred to
as the " costs of prosecution, " most court costs have little to do
with the particular case, but are instead effectively taxes, going to
places like state and county general funds, to judicial technology
modernization, civil legal aid, and even a statewide fund for district
attorney and attorney general salaries.4
The easiest place to see
fines and court costs in light of these new developments in the
law.
For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 4
