J-A15024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SETH AARON PRICE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 784 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 24, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-02-CR-0001666-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SETH AARON PRICE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 785 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 24, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-02-CR-0001667-2020

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: September 29, 2023

Seth Aaron Price appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his nolo contendere plea. He claims the trial court abused its 

discretion by imposing court costs for the offender supervision program 

without first conducting an ability-to-pay hearing. We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15024-23

- 2 -

In March 2022, Price pleaded nolo contendere to involuntary deviate 

sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) with a child, incest, and endangering the welfare 

of children1 (“Docket 1666”).

2 That same day, at a separate docket number,3

Price pleaded nolo contendere to indecent assault of a person less than 13 

years of age and simple assault.4 As part of the agreement, the 

Commonwealth withdrew the remaining charges at both dockets and nolle 

prossed all charges at a third docket number.

5 N.T., Mar. 2, 2022, at 16.

At sentencing, Price’s counsel informed the court that Price had lost his 

job and had not found new employment, had been using credit cards to pay 

counsel fees, and had only credit card debt in his name. See N.T., Mar. 24, 

2022, at 30. Counsel asked the court to take that into consideration when 

imposing sentence. Id. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five 

to 10 years in prison followed by 23 years of probation. The court also ordered 

Price to comply with lifetime registration requirements under the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act. The sentencing order stated that Price was 

“to pay all applicable fees and costs[.]” Order of Sentence, dated Mar. 24, 

2022. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b), 4302(b), 4304(a)(1), respectively.

2 CP-02-CR-0001666-2020.

3 CP-02-CR-0001667-2020.

4 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7) and 2701(a)(1), respectively.

5 CP-02-CR-0001664-2020. 
J-A15024-23

- 3 -

Price filed a post-sentence motion and a request to file a supplemental 

motion.6 The court granted the request to file a supplemental motion, and 

Price submitted a motion challenging the imposition of costs. He noted that 

the itemized costs at Docket 1666 included two line items for the offender 

supervision program (“OSP”) “(Allegheny/State) (Act 35 of 1991)” in the 

amount of $6,210.00 each. Supplemental Post Sentence Motion, filed Apr. 30, 

2021, at ¶ 7. He argued that the statute mandated a court to impose a 

monthly supervision fee of $25 “on any offender placed on probation [or] 

parole . . . unless the court finds that the fee should be reduced, waived or 

deferred based on the offender’s present inability to pay.” Id. at ¶ 10 (quoting 

18 P.S. § 11.1102(c)). He argued the fee was improperly calculated and that 

the court should not have assessed it because it had been apprised that Price 

had a present inability to pay costs.7 The court denied the motion, and Price 

timely appealed.

Price raises the following issue on appeal:

____________________________________________

6 After sentencing, Price’s trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The court 

granted the motion and appointed new counsel, who filed the post-sentence 

motion and supplemental post-sentence motion.

7 Price noted that he was preserving his challenge because the issue of 

whether Rule 706(C) required a trial court to consider a defendant’s ability to 

pay prior to imposing mandatory costs was on appeal in the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Lopez, 178 EAL 2021, 261 A.3d 1031 

(Pa. Aug. 24, 2021) (granting petition for allowance of appeal). As discussed 

below, the Supreme Court has since decided Lopez, finding a court is not 

required to determine the defendant’s ability to pay prior to imposing 

mandatory costs. See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 280 A.3d 887, 891 (Pa. 

2022).
J-A15024-23

- 4 -

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing 

mandatory court costs for Offender Supervision Programs 

under 18 P.S. § 11.1102(c) without first conducting an 

ability-to-pay hearing?

Price’s Br. at 4.

Price points out that costs were imposed, and at Docket 1666 there are 

two fees entitled “OSP (Allegheny/State),” each assessed pursuant to Act 35 

of 1991 for $6,210.

8 He maintains that the court abused its discretion by 

letting the offender supervision program cost stand without holding an abilityto-pay hearing. He further claims the amount over the $25 per month listed 

in the statute is discretionary. He argues that $25 times 276 months is $6,900 

and he was assessed nearly double that amount. He claims the $45 per month 

charge was set by a “decade-old administrative order” in Allegheny County. 

Price’s Br. at 13.

Price further argues that his counsel “signaled to the trial court” that he 

was financially destitute. Id. at 11. He argues that under Section 11.1102(c), 

the court may reduce, waive, or defer costs based on an inability to pay, and 

maintains it was an abuse of discretion to let the costs stand where he had a 

present inability to pay. 

Price argues Commonwealth v. Lopez, 280 A.3d 887, (Pa. 2022), 

does not apply because its holding applies to mandatory costs, and the 

supervision fee assessed on him was more than the mandatory cost required 

by statute. In his view, the fees over the statutory amount were discretionary. 

____________________________________________

8 Price notes that he was sentenced to 23 years’ probation and his probation 

at Docket 1667 was concurrent to his probation at Docket 1666.
J-A15024-23

- 5 -

He asserts it was an abuse of discretion to impose the discretionary portion of 

the fees without an ability-to-pay hearing.

“[A] court can impose, as a condition of supervision, a monthly fee for 

administrative expenses attendant to offender supervision programs.”

Commonwealth v. White, 251 A.3d 1274, 1276-77 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing

Commonwealth v. Nicely, 638 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1994)). “The fee applies to 

offenders who have been placed under the supervision of a county probation 

department or the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.” Id. at 1277;

See also 37 Pa. Code § 68.21 (Imposition of Condition); 18 P.S. § 11.1102(c) 

(Costs for offender supervision programs).

The court must impose “a monthly supervision fee of at least $25”: 

(c) Court.—The court shall impose as a condition of 

supervision a monthly supervision fee of at least $25 on any 

offender placed on probation, parole, accelerated 

rehabilitative disposition, probation without verdict or 

intermediate punishment unless the court finds that the fee 

should be reduced, waived or deferred based on the 

offender’s present inability to pay. All of the fees shall be 

deposited into the County Supervision Fee Restricted 

Receipts Account established in each county pursuant to this 

section. In the discretion of the Auditor General, but no less 

than once every three years, the Auditor General shall 

conduct an audit of the account.

18 P.S. § 11.1102(c). 

Allegheny County has issued an administrative order setting the fee at 

$45. The order provides, “All offenders placed on probation, parole, ARD, PWV, 

or IP shall be assessed an offender supervision fee of forty-five dollars 

($45.00) for every month or fraction thereof that an offender is under 
J-A15024-23

- 6 -

supervision.” Appellant’s Br., Ex. D, Offender Supervision Fees, No. AD-2012-

120-CR, 42 Pa. Bull. 3438 (Pa. C.P. May 11, 2012).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Lopez concluded that Criminal Rule 

706(c)9 does not require a sentencing court “to consider a defendant’s ability

to pay prior to imposing mandatory court costs at sentencing.” 280 A.3d at 

897. In White, this Court held that a court is required to impose the 

supervision fee in Section 11.1102(c). 251 A.3d at 1277. Relying on Lopez, 

it further concluded that although a trial court may determine the fee should 

be reduced, waived, or deferred due to an inability to pay, the court was not 

required to make such a determination before imposing the fee. Id.

Price’s attempt to distinguish White on the ground that the fees over 

$25 were discretionary fails. The statute requires the court to impose a 

monthly supervision fee of “at least $25.00.” 18 P.S. § 11.1102(c) (emphasis 

added). Allegheny County has set the fee at the mandatory amount of $45. 

The additional amount over $25 was not discretionary, and the court was not 

required to hold an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing the fees.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

9 Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 706(C) provides:

The court, in determining the amount and method of 

payment of a fine or costs shall, insofar as is just and 

practicable, consider the burden upon the defendant by 

reason of the defendant’s financial means, including the 

defendant’s ability to make restitution or reparations.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 706(C).
J-A15024-23

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023