Com. v. Kelly, P. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • J-S27036-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    PATRICK J. KELLY                           :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 2162 EDA 2019
    Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-13-CR-0000551-2013
    BEFORE:      SHOGAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                          FILED MARCH 17, 2021
    Appellant Patrick J. Kelly appeals the June 27, 2019 order of the Court
    of Common Pleas of Carbon County denying his “Motion to Bar Applicability of
    Sex Offender Registration and/or Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which
    the lower court characterized as an untimely petition under the Post-
    Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1
    This appeal is before us pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
    order of January 22, 2021, which vacated our June 29, 2020 disposition which
    affirmed the lower court’s decision.           The Supreme Court remanded for
    reconsideration in light of its decision in Commonwealth v. Lacombe,
    ____Pa.____, 
    234 A.3d 602
    , 618 (2020), in which the Court “decline[d] to
    find the PCRA, or any other procedural mechanism, is the exclusive method
    ____________________________________________
    *   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
    J-S27036-20
    for challenging sexual offender registration statutes.” After consideration of
    Lacombe, we affirm the order dismissing Appellant’s filing, but do so on
    grounds different than those of the lower court.2
    On June 18, 2013, Appellant was charged with Aggravated Indecent
    Assault of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Complainant Less than
    13 years old, Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Complainant less than 16 years
    old, Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 years old, and Indecent
    Exposure.     The criminal information accused Appellant of committing said
    crimes between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012.             The criminal
    information was later amended to include a charge of Indecent Assault.
    On April 29, 2016, Appellant pled guilty to one count of Indecent
    Assault. In his oral plea colloquy, Appellant agreed that he had committed
    sexual assaults of a minor in a period “spanning the time frame of 2011 and
    2012.” Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/29/16, at 4. Following an evaluation,
    the Sexual Offender Assessment Board (SOAB) determined that Appellant was
    not a sexually violent predator.
    On July 5, 2016, the trial court imposed a sentence of incarceration. As
    part of the plea process, Appellant gave written and verbal acknowledgment
    that he would be required to register pursuant to Pennsylvania Sex Offender
    ____________________________________________
    2 See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 
    174 A.3d 670
    , 674 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2017)
    (explaining that the Superior Court is not bound by the lower court’s rationale
    and may affirm the lower court's order on any basis supported by the record).
    -2-
    J-S27036-20
    Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)3 for a fifteen-year period. Appellant
    did not file a direct appeal.
    On September 15, 2017, Appellant filed the instant “Motion to Bar
    Applicability of Sex Offender Registration and/or Petition for Writ of Habeas
    Corpus.” Appellant cited to Commonwealth v. Muniz, 
    640 Pa. 699
    , 
    164 A.3d 1189
     (2017), in which our Supreme Court held that the retroactive
    application of SORNA’s registration and reporting requirements violated the
    ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
    Appellant asserted that he cannot be required to comply with SORNA’s
    registration requirements as his offenses occurred prior to the effective date
    of the original SORNA statute (December 20, 2012).
    In addition, Appellant claimed in his petition that the “retroactive
    application of SORNA also violates Pennsylvania’s Due Process Clause because
    it creates an irrefutable presumption of dangerousness, denying [Appellant]
    the fundamental right of reputation.” Petition, 9/15/17, at 3. Appellant did
    not develop this claim beyond this assertion.
    On November 27, 2018, the lower court held a hearing on Appellant’s
    petition. The parties focused on Appellant’s argument that he was not subject
    to sex offender registration requirements as he alleged that his offenses were
    ____________________________________________
    3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.42 (“SORNA I”). SORNA was originally
    enacted on December 20, 2011 and became effective December 20, 2012. As
    discussed infra, SORNA I was later amended by Acts 10 and 29 of 2018
    (known collectively as “SORNA II”). See Act of Feb. 21, 2018, P.L. 27, No.
    10, §§ 1-20 (Act 10 of 2018); Act of June 12, 2018, P.L. 140, No. 29, §§ 1-
    23 (Act 29 of 2018).
    -3-
    J-S27036-20
    committed before the effective date of the original SORNA statute. Neither
    the parties nor the lower court acknowledged that SORNA was modified by Act
    10 and Act 29 of 2018 (collectively referred to as “SORNA II”) after Appellant
    filed his petition in this case. See supra note 1. At the evidentiary hearing
    before the lower court, Appellant did not mention or present any evidence or
    authority in support of his claim raised in his petition that SORNA created an
    “irrefutable presumption of dangerousness.”
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the lower court indicated that it would
    take these matters under advisement and gave the parties an opportunity to
    submit supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions.
    On January 9, 2019, Appellant filed a “Brief in Support of Removal from
    SORNA registration.” On January 10, 2019, Appellant filed a “Supplemental
    Brief in Support of Removal from SORNA Registration” in which he raised new
    issues that had not been included in his petition or addressed at the hearing.
    Specifically, Appellant stated that “in addition to those arguments made
    in [Appellant’s] original brief, [Appellant] supplements those arguments on
    the basis of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
    Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, No. 15-CR-1570-2016,
    wherein that Court found both SORNA facially unconstitutional on various
    grounds.” Supplemental Brief, 1/10/19, at 1. Appellant listed the issues that
    the defendant presented to the Court of Common Pleas in Torsilieri without
    further development. Appellant noted that this case was pending before the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court at that time.
    -4-
    J-S27036-20
    Thereafter, on June 27, 2019, the lower court issued a memorandum
    and order, construing Appellant’s filing as an untimely PCRA petition that failed
    to invoke any of the PCRA timeliness exceptions. In the alternative, the lower
    court also asserted that even if Appellant’s petition were deemed to be timely
    filed, it found Appellant’s arguments pursuant to Muniz were meritless. The
    lower court made a specific finding that Appellant’s own testimony and plea
    colloquies demonstrated that “his criminal conduct occurred in part after the
    December    20,    2012    SORNA    effective    date   and   lacks   in   part   the
    unconstitutional retroactive application of SORNA to [Appellant] that has been
    ruled impermissible in [Muniz].” Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 6/28/19, at 19.
    In addition, the lower court indicated that it “decline[d] to substantively
    address [Appellant’s] contention that SORNA in its entirety violates the
    Pennsylvania and United States Constitution.” T.C.O., 6/28/19, at 19 n.7.
    On appeal, this Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying
    Appellant’s petition as untimely filed under the PCRA. Commonwealth v.
    Kelly,   2162     EDA     2019   (Pa.Super.     June    29,   2020)   (unpublished
    memorandum).       This Court did not reach the merits of Appellant’s claims.
    Appellant filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
    On July 21, 2020, our Supreme Court filed its decision in Lacombe, in
    which Supreme Court rejected the proposition that challenges to sexual
    offender registration requirements must be raised in a timely PCRA petition
    and “declined to find that the PCRA, or any other procedural mechanism, is
    the exclusive method for challenging sexual offender registration statutes.”
    -5-
    J-S27036-20
    Lacombe, 234 A.3d at 617. The Court recognized that “frequent changes to
    sexual offender registration statutes, along with more onerous requirements
    and retroactive application, complicate registrants’ ability to challenge new
    requirements imposed years after their sentences become final.” Id. at 617.
    Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction
    to consider Lacombe's “Petition to Terminate His Sexual Offender Registration
    Requirements.”
    Thereafter, in the instant case, the Supreme Court granted Appellant’s
    petition for allowance of the appeal, vacated our June 29, 2020 disposition
    and remanded this case for our consideration of its decision in Lacombe.
    In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Lacombe, we conclude that
    Appellant’s September 15, 2017 “Motion to Bar Applicability of Sex Offender
    Registration and/or Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” should not be
    construed as a PCRA petition as the lower court had jurisdiction to consider
    Appellant’s challenges to his sex offender registration requirements outside
    the confines of the PCRA.
    However, we need not remand the case for the lower court for further
    proceedings as the lower court included an alternative merits analysis in its
    opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Accordingly, we may address the
    merits of the claim Appellant raised in his petition. In his concise statement
    of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), Appellant
    raised the following issues for review:
    -6-
    J-S27036-20
    1. Whether the Honorable Trial Court’s finding that the crime of
    conviction of Indecent Assault, graded as a misdemeanor of the
    second degree, was committed on or after the effective date of
    SORNA, was an abuse of discretion and against the weight of
    the evidence?
    2. Whether SORNA applies to Appellant’s conviction for Indecent
    Assault, graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree, where
    the predicate facts established that the crime was not
    committed on or after December 20, 2012, the effective date
    of SORNA?
    3. Whether that portion of the sentence requiring Appellant to
    comply with SORNA should be vacated?
    4. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that Appellant’s filing
    was untimely?
    5. Whether SORNA is unconstitutional on its face and as applied
    to Appe[]llant, for the following reasons:
    a. Whether SORNA (Act 10) denies the Appellant due
    process under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it
    creates an irrebuttable presumption that those convicted
    of enumerated offenses “pose a high risk of committing
    additional sexual offenses” depriving those individuals of
    their fundamental right to reputation without notice and
    an opportunity to be heard?
    b. Whether SORNA (Act 10) denies the Appellant procedural
    due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
    to the United States Constitution because it unlawfully
    restricts liberty and privacy without notice and an
    opportunity to be heard?
    c. Whether SORNA (Act 10) violates substantive due
    process under the State and Federal Constitutions, U.S.
    Const. Amend. XIV; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 1, because
    SORNA deprives individuals of inalienable rights and fails
    to satisfy strict scrutiny?
    d. Whether the recent amendment to SORNA, Act 10, is in
    all material respects identical to SORNA and therefore a
    punitive law?
    -7-
    J-S27036-20
    e. Does SORNA (Act 10), as a penal law, violate the
    separation of powers doctrine because it usurps the
    exclusive judicial function of imposing a sentence?
    f. Whether SORNA contravenes the 5th, 6th, and 14th
    Amendments of the United States Constitution and the
    corresponding     protections   of   the   Pennsylvania
    Constitution because as a criminal punishment, SORNA
    cannot be imposed without due process, notice and
    opportunity to contest its imposition, and ensuring that
    each fact necessary to support the mandatory sentence
    beyond the authorized statutory maximum is submitted
    to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant
    to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000) and
    Alleyne v. United States, 
    1570 U.S. 99
     (2013)?
    g. Whether the imposition of mandatory fi[]fteen year sex
    offender registration for all Tier II offenses under SORNA
    is a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
    Eight[h] and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
    States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution?
    Concise Statement, 8/12/19, at 1-3.
    In the first three claims, Appellant argued that the lower court erred in
    refusing to vacate his sex offender registration requirements under SORNA as
    he alleged that all of his offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the
    original SORNA statute.      As noted above, in his petition, Appellant cited to
    Muniz for the proposition that the retroactive application of SORNA violated
    the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
    Appellant alleged that there was no support for the lower court’s factual
    finding that Appellant’s crimes were committed after December 20, 2012, the
    effective date of SORNA I.
    We initially note that Appellant did not raise or develop this claim in his
    appellate brief. “[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of
    -8-
    J-S27036-20
    a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any
    other meaningful    fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”
    Commonwealth v. Donoughe, ___A.3d___, 
    2020 PA Super 288
     (Pa.Super.
    2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 
    604 Pa. 176
    , 191, 
    985 A.2d 915
    , 924 (2009)). As such, Appellant’s claim is waived on appeal.
    However, we feel compelled to note that the neither the parties nor the
    lower court recognized that, before the evidentiary hearing was held in this
    case, the Legislature passed Acts 10 and 29 of 2018 (“SORNA II”), which
    amended the original legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision
    in Muniz. As our Supreme Court recently explained in Commonwealth v.
    Torsilieri, ___ Pa.____, 
    232 A.3d 567
     (2020),
    Act 10 split SORNA, which was previously designated in the
    Sentencing Code as Subchapter H, into two subchapters. Revised
    Subchapter H applies to crimes committed on or after December
    20, 2012, whereas Subchapter I applies to crimes committed after
    April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012. In essence,
    Revised Subchapter H retained many of the provisions of SORNA,
    while Subchapter I imposed arguably less onerous requirements
    on those who committed offenses prior to December 20, 2012, in
    an attempt to address this Court's conclusion in Muniz, that
    application of the original provisions of SORNA to these offenders
    constituted an ex post facto violation.
    Id. at 580. This Court has clarified that “Subchapter I was designed to ensure
    that those required to retroactively register under SORNA—and therefore
    entitled to relief following Muniz—will still have to do so. Commonwealth
    v. Mickley, 
    240 A.3d 957
    , 958 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2020).
    -9-
    J-S27036-20
    At the time of the lower court’s hearing on Appellant’s petition in this
    case, Appellant was no longer subject to the requirements of SORNA I as the
    General Assembly had enacted SORNA II. As such, the lower court erred in
    relying on SORNA I and should have assessed whether Appellant was required
    to register under Revised Subchapter H or Subchapter I of SORNA II.
    Commonwealth v. Smith, 
    240 A.3d 654
    , 657 (Pa. Super. 2020) (noting that
    “[b]ecause offender registration requirements evolve pursuant to the
    legislative decisions of our General Assembly, registrants must comply with
    current law”) (emphasis in original).
    The parties do not dispute that Appellant pled guilty to offenses that
    occurred before December 20, 2012. The lower court found that Appellant
    pled guilty to criminal conduct with a date range beginning on January 1, 2011
    and ending on December 31, 2012.               This Court has held that “when an
    appellant’s offenses straddle the effective dates of Subchapters H and I or
    SORNA, he is entitled to the lower reporting requirements in Subchapter I….”
    Commonwealth v. Alston, 
    212 A.3d 526
    , 530 (Pa.Super. 2019). As a result,
    we find that Appellant is subject to the reporting requirements set forth in
    Subchapter I.4
    ____________________________________________
    4 Moreover, to the extent that the lower court should have reviewed
    Appellant’s ex post facto claim in light of his current registration requirements
    under Subchapter I, we note that in Lacombe, our Supreme Court held that
    “Subchapter I is nonpunitive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition
    against ex post facto laws.” Lacombe, 234 A.3d at 605–606.
    - 10 -
    J-S27036-20
    In Appellant’s remaining claim on appeal, Appellant argues that SORNA
    is unconstitutional in its entirety for various reasons, including those raised
    before the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County in Commonwealth v.
    Torsilieri, No. CP-15-CR-1570-2016 (C.C.P. Chester 2018), wherein the trial
    court found SORNA facially unconstitutional on multiple grounds.5
    However, Appellant did not raise these claims before the lower court in
    his September 25, 2017 “Motion to Bar Applicability of Sex Offender
    Registration and/or Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” To the extent that
    Appellant made a general allegation in his petition that SORNA violated his
    constitutional right of reputation through an irrefutable presumption, we note
    that Appellant did not mention this claim at the evidentiary hearing or attempt
    to provide any evidence, citation to authority, or analysis to support this bald
    assertion.
    As such, we agree with the trial court that all of these issues are waived
    as our rules of appellate procedure provide that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial
    court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P.
    302(a). Moreover, this Court has recently found that a defendant’s failure to
    present scientific evidence to support his claim that the underlying legislative
    policy in Subchapter H infringes on his constitutional rights resulted in waiver
    ____________________________________________
    5 We acknowledge that the Supreme Court has since filed a decision in
    Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, ___Pa.___, 
    232 A.3d 567
     (2020). Given that
    our conclusion that Appellant failed to properly preserve a challenge on the
    same theory before the trial court, we need not discuss the holding in that
    decision.
    - 11 -
    J-S27036-20
    as the appellant “failed to satisfy his burden to prove that Revised Subchapter
    H provisions applicable to him clearly, palpably, and plainly violate the
    constitution.”    Commonwealth v. Manzano, 
    237 A.3d 1175
    , 1182
    (Pa.Super. 2020).
    We are not persuaded by Appellant’s claim that he properly raised these
    claims before the trial court in his January 10, 2019 “Supplemental Brief in
    Support of Removal from SORNA Registration.” Appellant did not raise these
    claims in his petition or seek the lower court’s permission to file an amended
    petition at any time, but listed these issues in a supplemental brief filed after
    the evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s petition had been held.
    As such, it was proper for the lower court to decline to address the
    merits of these claims, which were not properly preserved in a related
    challenge in Appellant’s petition or in an authorized amended petition. This
    Court has held:
    [a] petition for habeas corpus must specifically aver facts which,
    if true, would entitle the relator to an award of a writ of habeas
    corpus and a hearing thereon. Moreover, it is a general rule that
    the petition may be denied summarily and without a hearing
    where it fails to allege facts making out a prima facie case for the
    issuance of the writ.
    Balsamo v. Mazurkiewicz, 
    611 A.2d 1250
    , 1253 (Pa.Super. 1992) (citations
    omitted).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order dismissing Appellant’s
    petition.
    Order affirmed.
    - 12 -
    J-S27036-20
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 3/17/2021
    - 13 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2162 EDA 2019

Filed Date: 3/17/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021