Com. v. Gruver, C. ( 2021 )

J-S46014-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER GRUVER : No. 1202 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-13-CR-0000166-2019
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 5, 2021
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s April 22, 2020 order
granting Appellee’s, Christopher Gruver, post-sentence motion challenging
the constitutionality of his 25-year registration requirement under Subchapter
H of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).1 For
the following reasons, we transfer this appeal to the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.
On October 18, 2019, Gruver pled guilty to indecent assault of a person
less than 16 years of age, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8). On January 17, 2020, the
court sentenced Gruver to 2 to 18 months’ incarceration, and notified him that
he is subject to a 25-year registration requirement as a Tier II offender under
SORNA. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.14(c)(1.3), 9799.15(a)(2).
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.42.
J-S46014-20
On January 24, 2020, Gruver filed a timely, post-sentence motion
alleging “that SORNA create[s] an irrebuttable presumption that all sexual
offenders are highly likely to re-offend and that this presumption[,] and the
registration requirements imposed as a consequence[,] impinge on his
fundamental right to reputation as protected under the Pennsylvania
Constitution.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/30/20, at 1. After a hearing, at
which only argument was presented by the parties, the trial court issued an
order on April 22, 2020, granting Gruver’s post-sentence motion, deeming the
registration and notification requirements of SORNA unconstitutional as
applied to Gruver, and “direct[ing] that [the] portion of [Gruver’s] sentence
which required him to comply with these requirements was vacated.” Id. at
2.
The Commonwealth filed a timely appeal, and complied with the trial
court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal. Herein, it raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in granting [Gruver’s] post[-]
sentence motion requesting exclusion from the 25-year SORNA
registration requirement mandated by the Pennsylvania
Legislature for conviction on the crime of indecent assault of
person less than 16 years of age…?
Commonwealth’s Brief at 2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Preliminarily, we observe that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has
exclusive jurisdiction over the following types of cases:
§ 722. Direct appeals from courts of common pleas
-2-
J-S46014-20
The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals
from final orders of the courts of common pleas in the following
classes of cases:
***
(7) Matters where the court of common pleas has held
invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of
the United States, or to the Constitution of this
Commonwealth, any treaty or law of the United States or
any provision of the Constitution of, or of any statute of, this
Commonwealth, or any provision of any home rule charter.
42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7).
Additionally, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 751 states:
Rule 751. Transfer of Erroneously Filed Cases
(a) General rule. If an appeal or other matter is taken to
or brought in a court or magisterial district which does not
have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or
magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or
dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to
the proper court of this Commonwealth, where the appeal
or other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in
transferee court on the date first filed in a court or
magisterial district.
(b) Transfers by prothonotaries. An appeal or other
matter may be transferred from a court to another court
under this rule by order of court or by order of the
prothonotary of any appellate court affected.
Pa.R.A.P. 751. See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(a) (“A matter which is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of a court or magisterial district judge of this
Commonwealth but which is commenced in any other tribunal of this
Commonwealth shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court
or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall be treated as if
originally filed in the transferee court or magisterial district of this
-3-
J-S46014-20
Commonwealth on the date when first filed in the other tribunal.”);
Commonwealth v. Herman, 143 A.3d 392, 394 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“Where
an appeal within the exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal is mistakenly filed in
the wrong court, the proper course is to transfer the appeal to the correct
judicial body.”).
Instantly, in ruling on Gruver’s post-sentence motion, the trial court held
that “[t]he absence of any opportunity under SORNA for a convicted sexual
offender to challenge the presumption that he is at high risk of re-offense
represents an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption which, in conjunction
with the resulting consequences — the requirement to register, the damage
to reputation (a fundamental right under the Pennsylvania Constitution), and
the punitive effect — violates [Gruver’s] right to due process.” TCO at 14
(footnote omitted). Because the court declared SORNA unconstitutional as
applied to Gruver, our Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this case
under section 722(7). See Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, 232 A.3d 567, 572
(Pa. 2020) (concluding that the Commonwealth’s appeal from the Chester
County Court of Common Pleas’ order declaring SORNA unconstitutional was
within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction). Accordingly, we transfer
this appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Appeal transferred. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-S46014-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/05/2021
-5-