Imposing Victims's Children and Youth Services Costs on the Offender
In Commonwealth v. Gaddis, 432 Pa. Super. 523, 639 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 1994), the defendant challenged the sentencing court's imposition of $ 137,500 in costs incurred by the Cambria County Children and Youth Services (CYS) for child foster and placement care and for psychiatric and psychological assistance to the victims of the defendant's crimes.
The Superior Court examined the application of Section 9728(a), (b) and (g) of the Sentencing Code, and it concluded as follows:
A clear reading of section 9728 indicates that subsections (a) and (b) govern the status of restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines and penalties imposed as part of sentencing or pretrial disposition, and the manner in which judgment for same may be entered with the prothonotary against a defendant.
Restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines and penalties are not delineated in separate subsections of section 9728, but are all contained in subsection (a).
Therefore, we agree with appellant that the separate reference to "costs" in subsection (g) provides for the collection of costs associated with obtaining a money judgment against the defendant, and does not provide for the imposition of the costs of prosecution itself, as the sentencing court in this case envisioned.
Moreover, we do not find that the imposition of the expenses of CYS on appellant in this case was proper, even under section 9728(a).
The statute states:
"A sentence ... for restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines or penalties shall ... be a judgment in favor of the probation department upon the person or the property of the person sentenced...." Id., 9728(a) (emphasis added). Any monies collected from appellant, then, could not satisfy the CYS costs, as only the ... Probation Department would be a judgment holder under section 9728. Id. at 472-73.
The Superior Court noted that clear statutory authority exists for the imposition of costs for the care, support and maintenance of children under the supervision of the court or CYS, and it therefore concluded that the trial court erred in imposing the CYS costs pursuant to Section 9728(g).