Commonwealth v. May

Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Ford only addressed discretionary fines, additional litigation addressed whether so-called “mandatory” fines are actually mandatory at sentencing if a defendant cannot afford to pay them. The Superior Court ruled that they are. It rejected the statutory argument by refusing to apply the rules of statutory interpretation and instead relying on incorrect dicta from a prior Superior Court decision and a misreading of Ford. It further rejected the excessive fines clause argument under the Pennsylvania Constitution by disregarding the actual arguments advanced by the parties and instead performing a different type of excessive fines clause analysis that was not relevant. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently denied review. As a result, it remains unresolved in Pennsylvania whether a court is required to impose a fine on an indigent defendant when the court knows that the defendant cannot afford to pay.