Com. v. Lopez, N. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-S62045-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    NELSON JOAQUIN LOPEZ
    Appellant                 No. 975 WDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 8, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0002085-2014
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                   FILED OCTOBER 27, 2015
    Appellant, Nelson Joaquin Lopez, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, following
    his negotiated guilty plea to corruption of minors and indecent assault of a
    person less than 13 years of age.1 On November 2, 2014, Appellant was
    with victim, who was his twelve-year-old neighbor.       Appellant placed his
    hands down victim’s pants and touched victim’s genitals. On March 5, 2015,
    Appellant pled guilty to one count each of corruption of minors and indecent
    assault.    The court sentenced Appellant on June 8, 2015, to six (6) to
    twenty-four (24) months’ incarceration for corruption of minors, with no
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301(a)(1)(ii); 3126(a)(7).
    _____________________________
    *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S62045-15
    further penalty for indecent assault.              Pursuant to the Sexual Offender
    Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”),2 the court ordered Appellant to
    register with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) for life, as a convicted
    Tier III sex offender.      Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on June 10,
    2015, which the court denied on June 12, 2015.                 On June 19, 2015,
    Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a voluntary concise statement of
    errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
    Section 9799.14 governs the classification of sexual offenses under
    SORNA in relevant part as follows:
    § 9799.14. Sexual offenses and tier system
    (a) Tier system established.−Sexual offenses shall be
    classified in a three-tiered system composed of Tier I
    sexual offenses, Tier II sexual offenses and Tier III sexual
    offenses.
    *       *   *
    (d) Tier III sexual offenses.−The following offenses
    shall be classified as Tier III sexual offenses:
    *       *   *
    (8)    18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7).
    *       *   *
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.14 (a), (d).           Section 9799.15 governs the period of
    registration as a sex offender in pertinent part as follows:
    ____________________________________________
    2
    42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.41.
    -2-
    J-S62045-15
    § 9799.15. Period of registration
    (a) Period of registration.−Subject to subsection (c),
    an individual specified in section 9799.13 (relating to
    applicability) shall register with the Pennsylvania State
    Police as follows:
    *    *    *
    (3) An individual convicted of a Tier III sexual
    offense shall register for the life of the individual.
    *    *    *
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.15(a)(3). Pennsylvania law states that the registration
    requirements under SORNA do not constitute criminal punishment.          See
    Commonwealth v. McDonough, 
    96 A.3d 1067
     (Pa.Super. 2014) (rejecting
    argument that SORNA unconstitutionally required defendant to register for
    period that exceeded statutory maximum sentence for associated crime;
    stating SORNA registration requirements are product of remedial legislation
    with non-punitive goal of public safety).
    Instantly, Appellant was required under SORNA to register as a sex
    offender for life due to his conviction for indecent assault. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
    §§ 9799.14, 9799.15(a)(3). McDonough completely disposes of Appellant’s
    arguments that his lifetime registration requirement is unconstitutional
    because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence for his offense or
    otherwise constitutes an “unusual punishment.” Accordingly, we affirm.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    -3-
    J-S62045-15
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 10/27/2015
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 975 WDA 2015

Filed Date: 10/27/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/27/2015