Com. v. Brown, T., Com. v. Brown, T. No. 1506 WDA 2016

In 2004 Tanya M. Brown pled guilty to incest (F2) and endangering the welfare of a child (M1) under a negotiated plea; sentence included 3 months house arrest and probation.
At the time of plea, incest was an enumerated Megan’s Law offense requiring a 10-year registration period; plea paperwork stated registration was for “at least” ten years.
No post-sentence motions or direct appeals were filed.
SORNA took effect December 20, 2012 and reclassified incest as a Tier III offense, converting Brown’s 10-year requirement into lifetime registration; Brown was still within her registration period when SORNA became effective.
Brown sought removal from registration in July 2016; the trial court ruled her registration obligation ended in October 2015 based on a finding that a 10-year term was a specifically bargained plea term.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order, concluding the record did not show a ten-year registration period was an essential, bargained-for term of the plea.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Brown's Argument	Held
1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to terminate SORNA registration?	Trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify judgment of sentence.	Court could hear breach-of-contract claim to enforce plea terms; filing was within 4-year statute of limitations.	Court had jurisdiction to hear Brown’s contract-based claim and the filing was timely.
2. Was a 10-year registration term a specifically bargained-for plea term so SORNA’s lifetime rule breached the plea?	SORNA applied; plea did not guarantee only 10 years — paperwork said “at least” 10 years and transcript silent.	Brown (and her attorney) understood and relied on a promise of 10 years; lifetime registration breaches that expectation.	No: objective record did not show the Commonwealth specifically agreed to cap registration at 10 years, so court erred in terminating SORNA obligations.

Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (plea bargains are contractual and may preclude registration where record shows specific promise)
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 147 A.3d 517 (Pa. 2016) (plea agreements analyzed under contract principles)
Commonwealth v. Mebane, 58 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (specific enforcement of plea bargains fosters fairness)
Calabrese v. Zeager, 976 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 2009) (questions of law reviewed de novo; credibility findings are binding)
Commonwealth v. Kroh, 654 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Super. 1995) (ambiguities in plea terms construed against the prosecution)
Commonwealth v. Partee, 86 A.3d 245 (Pa. Super. 2014) (plea structure showing withdrawal of charges can demonstrate a specific registration bargain)
Commonwealth v. Ritz, 153 A.3d 336 (Pa. 2016) (trial court may enforce a ten-year registration term when prosecutor expressly agrees)
Commonwealth v. Reed, 135 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2016) (addressing whether registration is punitive vs. collateral consequence)
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 1997) (contract statute of limitations principles)