PA Superior Court: right to appointed counsel where there is a likelihood of imprisonment for failure to pay cost

03/03/2020 , Pennsylvania , Litigation , Incarceration for Fees/Fines (incomplete)

In B.A.W. v. T.L.W., 230 A.3d 402 (2020), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed incarceration as a sanction for the failure to pay a cost but failed to inquire whether the party was entitled to appointed counsel. The trial court issued a contempt order against the father for failing to pay for his third of the custody evaluation cost, which was court-ordered but payable to a third party. On appeal, the Superior Court analogized to Commonwealth v. Diaz. The Court determined that whether the cost was payable to a government or a third party if the sanction for failure to pay was incarceration, which creates a likelihood of imprisonment, the trial court was required to ascertain whether the party was entitled to appointed counsel. Citing Diaz, the Court held that if, on remand, the trial court determines that there is a likelihood that the father could be imprisoned for contempt and that the father is indigent, then the court must appoint counsel. 

Appointment of Counsel: Yes
Qualified: Yes
? If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.