Com. v. Bednar, G.
741 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- George J. Bednar (aged ~69 at offense) pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d)) and criminal use of a communication facility; Commonwealth withdrew another charge and agreed to a non‑mandatory minimum.
- SOAB assessment was performed by Dr. Barbara Ziv; Bednar retained Dr. Timothy P. Foley; both testified at an SVP hearing at sentencing.
- Trial court found Bednar to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12 and imposed an aggregate 10‑year probationary sentence (below mitigated guidelines range).
- Bednar timely appealed the SVP designation and sentence; while appeal was pending, this Court decided Commonwealth v. Butler addressing constitutionality of the SVP designation mechanism.
- Relying on Butler and Muniz, the Superior Court concluded the statutory process for SVP designation is unconstitutional because it permits a judge (not a jury) to find facts that increase a defendant’s registration/punishment exposure.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in part, vacated the SVP designation as an illegal sentence, reversed that SVP order, and remanded to determine Bednar’s appropriate SORNA tier and provide required registration notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was evidence insufficient to find Bednar an SVP because Commonwealth expert relied on belief that offense must be "predatory" and equated mere possession/viewing with predatory conduct? | Commonwealth asserted SOAB expert’s opinion supported SVP finding based on risk and predatory nature of conduct. | Bednar argued experts misapplied the statutory "predatory" requirement and possession/viewing alone is not predatory; evidence therefore insufficient. | Not decided on merits; Court declined to address sufficiency because SVP designation mechanism was held unconstitutional in Butler and thus vacated here. |
| Did trial court abuse discretion because weight of evidence did not support that Bednar suffered a personality disorder or was likely to reoffend? | Commonwealth relied on expert testimony to support personality disorder and future risk. | Bednar argued weight of evidence failed to show personality disorder, likelihood to reoffend, or predatory conduct. | Not decided on merits; Court did not reach weight‑of‑evidence claim due to constitutional ruling invalidating SVP procedure. |
| Is the statutory SVP designation procedure constitutional given it allows judge‑found facts that increase registration/punishment? | Commonwealth maintained statutory SVP process was permissible. | Bednar (and Butler) argued judge‑found SVP facts increase punishment and violate Apprendi/Alleyne jury‑trial requirements. | Court concluded SVP designation procedure is unconstitutional under Muniz/Apprendi/Alleyne per Butler, so courts may not hold SVP hearings or designate SVPs until legislature provides a constitutional mechanism. |
| What remedial steps are required given SVP procedure invalidation? | Commonwealth sought continued SVP designation and sentence. | Bednar sought vacatur of SVP designation and appropriate SORNA notice per tiers. | Court vacated SVP designation, remanded to determine SORNA tier and provide statutory registration notice (15/25/life as appropriate). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held SORNA registration requirements are punitive for constitutional purposes)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact increasing penalty must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extends Apprendi: any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an "element" for jury to find)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (trial courts cannot impose certain judicial findings that trigger mandatory minimums absent a constitutional statute)