Groff v. Township of Elizabeth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Groff v. Township of Elizabeth

420 A.2d 791, 54 Pa. Commw. 192, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1764

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 7, 1980

DocketAppeal, No. 13 T.D. 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 420 A.2d 791 (Groff v. Township of Elizabeth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Groff v. Township of Elizabeth, 420 A.2d 791, 54 Pa. Commw. 192, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1764 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson, Jr.,

Appellant was found guilty by the trial court, sitting without a jury, after a trial de novo, of the violation of .Section 1406 of the Elizabeth Township Zoning Ordinance (parking or storing of automotive vehicles without current license plates and/or current inspection stickers). Appellant was unrepresented at the trial and is unrepresented in this appeal. His appeal is based solely on his right to court-appointed counsel at the de novo trial for this summary offense.

Appellant would be entitled to court-appointed counsel under Buie 316(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure only when there is a likelihood that imprisonment will be imposed. In this case the penalty provided in the ordinance is the imposition of a fine. In default of the payment of the fine, then and only then may imprisonment be imposed and then only after a determination that the appellant is financially able to pay the fine or costs. Rule 65(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

(a) If a defendant, sentenced to pay a fine or costs after a finding of guilt in a summary case, defaults in such payments, the issuing authority shall not commit the defendant to prison for failure to pay a fine or costs unless, after hearing, it appears that the defendant is financially able to pay the fine or costs.

Therefore, it is quite clear that to date in this summary process there has been no time that a prison [194]*194sentence could have been imposed, much less was likely. If the interpretation were otherwise, Rule 316(a) would be without meaning for a contra interpretation would mean that every defendant in every summary proceeding would be entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Accordingly, we will enter the following

Order

And Now, October 7, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, filed November 1, 1979, to No. 1120 of 1979, is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson, Jr.,

Appellant was found guilty by the trial court, sitting without a jury, after a trial de novo, of the violation of .Section 1406 of the Elizabeth Township Zoning Ordinance (parking or storing of automotive vehicles without current license plates and/or current inspection stickers). Appellant was unrepresented at the trial and is unrepresented in this appeal. His appeal is based solely on his right to court-appointed counsel at the de novo trial for this summary offense.

Appellant would be entitled to court-appointed counsel under Buie 316(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure only when there is a likelihood that imprisonment will be imposed. In this case the penalty provided in the ordinance is the imposition of a fine. In default of the payment of the fine, then and only then may imprisonment be imposed and then only after a determination that the appellant is financially able to pay the fine or costs. Rule 65(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

(a) If a defendant, sentenced to pay a fine or costs after a finding of guilt in a summary case, defaults in such payments, the issuing authority shall not commit the defendant to prison for failure to pay a fine or costs unless, after hearing, it appears that the defendant is financially able to pay the fine or costs.

Therefore, it is quite clear that to date in this summary process there has been no time that a prison [194]*194sentence could have been imposed, much less was likely. If the interpretation were otherwise, Rule 316(a) would be without meaning for a contra interpretation would mean that every defendant in every summary proceeding would be entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Accordingly, we will enter the following

Order

And Now, October 7, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, filed November 1, 1979, to No. 1120 of 1979, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 A.2d 791, 54 Pa. Commw. 192, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groff-v-township-of-elizabeth-pacommwct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack