Com. v. Dones, E.
Com. v. Dones, E. No. 1968 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Ellis Chundu Dones, required to register in Pennsylvania based on a 2004 New York unlawful imprisonment conviction, was charged with failing to update his registration after moving in April 2014.
- Dones had previously been convicted in Pennsylvania (2011) for failing to register, and was on parole when he interacted with parole agents who informed him of registration rules and gave him notices requiring in-person updates within three business days.
- After leaving a group home on April 1, 2014, Dones did not provide a new address; he was arrested May 11, 2014 with his registration still listing the April 1 address.
- A jury convicted Dones of failing to comply with registration (18 Pa.C.S. § 4915(a)(1)); the trial court admitted evidence of his prior failure-to-register conviction to prove knowledge/absence of mistake.
- The trial court imposed a mandatory minimum 5–10 year sentence based on a statutory enhancement for a second or subsequent registration offense (42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4(a)); post-conviction, the Superior Court affirmed the conviction but vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing because § 9718.4 was later held unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of SORNA violates ex post facto | Commonwealth: SORNA is civil/regulatory, not punitive, so retroactive application is permissible | Dones: Retroactive SORNA application is punitive and unconstitutional as-applied and facially | Denied — Superior Court follows Perez/Britton: under Smith two-step test SORNA is nonpunitive; no relief (Supreme Court review pending did not yet disturb precedent) |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: evidence (parole agent testimony, notices, emails, registration forms) sufficed to show knowledge | Dones: He signed forms without reading them and reasonably believed parole would handle registration; verdict against weight | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; jury could credit parole agent and notices showing duty to register |
| Admissibility of prior failure-to-register conviction | Commonwealth: prior conviction admissible under Pa.R.E. 404(b) to prove knowledge/absence of mistake | Dones: Prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial and cumulative of other evidence of knowledge | Denied — prior conviction was highly probative on knowledge/absence of mistake and probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Mandatory minimum sentence based on prior conviction (statutory proof at sentencing) | Commonwealth: submission of prior-conviction issue to jury after verdict was harmless; enhancement valid | Dones: Trial court’s handling and statute violate Apprendi/Alleyne principles or are unconstitutional | Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated — Superior Court concluded § 9718.4 is unconstitutional per later Superior Court precedent and resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (establishes two-step test for whether a registration law is punitive for ex post facto purposes)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty must be treated as an element to be proved to a jury)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior conviction exception to Apprendi)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 97 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (applies Smith and Mendoza–Martinez factors to hold SORNA nonpunitive)
- Commonwealth v. Britton, 134 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (reaffirms Perez and follows its ex post facto analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (addressed severability and constitutionality issues relevant to SORNA-related sentencing provisions)