Fund (Act 35 of 1991). These costs are monthly fees charged by the First Judicial District for providing probation services to Mr. Lopez because he is a Philadelphia resident. The Debtor maintains that because the sentence of probation did not mention a fee or cost associated with that punishment, the “supervisory” fees which appear on the docket sheet were not assessed as “part of the sentence” and, accordingly, were discharged. Debtor’s Brief, 4. As additional authority, the Debtor relies on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding that probation fees are considered part of a criminal judgment, and not part of a sentence. Id. citing Commonwealth v. Nicely, 536 Pa. 144, 152, 638 A.2d 213, 217 (1994). Additionally, he cites In re Miller, 511 B.R. 621, 632 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.2014) (<HOLDING>) Id. 5. The FJD considers the Debtor’s reliance
holding that intervention fees assessed as part of program to aid criminal debtor in reentering society after incarceration are dischargeable recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial holding that trial court properly assessed mothers attorneys fees as necessaries against father in case in which trial court ordered father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support but did not state that the fees were necessaries holding that costs and fees cannot be assessed when a court imposes punitive sanctions holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support