A. Malone v. The PA State Police of the Commonwealth of PA
A. Malone v. The PA State Police of the Commonwealth of PA - 577 M.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- Malone pleaded guilty in 2004 to attempted involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; judgment included a handwritten "10 yr." notation next to Megan’s Law registration as a condition of sentence.
- Malone timely registered annually from 2004 and believed his duty to register expired June 14, 2014.
- After SORNA (Megan’s Law IV) became effective, the State Police notified Malone (Dec. 3, 2012) that as a Tier 3 offender he must register for life and be subject to quarterly registration and Internet notification.
- Malone filed a petition seeking declaratory relief that he is exempt from lifetime registration, mandamus to remove his listing, and claims including ex post facto, due process, and breach of his plea agreement.
- The State Police filed preliminary objections (demurrer), arguing Malone’s pleadings fail to state constitutional claims and that the State Police is not a party to the plea agreement.
- The Court sustained most preliminary objections, leaving only Malone’s challenge to SORNA §9799.15(g) (the in‑person reporting provision) and directing the State Police to answer remaining allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of SORNA registration provisions violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses | Malone: SORNA’s lifetime registration and reporting requirements increase punishment compared to law at time of plea | State Police: Most SORNA registration provisions are nonpunitive; pleadings fail to state an ex post facto claim | Court: Demurrer sustained as to ex post facto claims generally; exception preserved for §9799.15(g) in‑person reporting (may be punitive) |
| Whether SORNA’s Internet notification provision violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause | Malone: Internet notification is punitive and retroactive; violates ex post facto | State Police: Internet notification is nonpunitive; no federal ex post facto violation | Court: Demurrer sustained as to federal ex post facto challenge to Internet notification (relying on Taylor) |
| Whether retroactive SORNA application violates procedural due process under the 14th Amendment (stigma‑plus) | Malone: Internet listing and presumption of dangerousness injure reputation and deny opportunity to challenge registration, violating due process | State Police: Malone not deprived of life, liberty, or property; reputation alone insufficient | Court: Demurrer sustained — Malone failed to plead deprivation of a protected interest under the 14th Amendment (stigma‑plus not met) |
| Whether State Police breached Malone’s plea agreement/should be held to sentencing order noting 10‑year registration | Malone: Plea and sentencing notation limit registration to 10 years; he is entitled to specific performance | State Police: Not a party to the plea agreement; any breach claim belongs against the Commonwealth or in trial court | Court: Demurrer sustained as to breach claim — State Police not a party; such disputes belong in sentencing court/common pleas (per Dougherty) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163 (Pa. 2012) (ex post facto framework under federal and state constitutions)
- Coppolino v. Noonan, 102 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (SORNA registration largely nonpunitive but §9799.15(g) reporting may be punitive)
- Taylor v. Pennsylvania State Police, 132 A.3d 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (internet notification not an ex post facto violation under U.S. Constitution; uncertainty under state constitution)
- Dougherty v. Pennsylvania State Police, 138 A.3d 152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (State Police ministerial role; not party to plea bargains; plea‑agreement enforcement belongs in sentencing court)
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 147 A.3d 517 (Pa. 2016) (defendant entitled to benefit of plea bargain; specific performance of plea terms)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (refusal to apply SORNA retroactively where it would breach plea terms)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea agreements analyzed under contract principles; prosecutor must abide by plea terms)