Com. v. Hagan, D.
306 A.3d 414
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2023Background
- Appellant Donald A. Hagan was convicted of IDSI in 1992 (victim: 13-year-old) and, after later statutory changes, became subject to sex‑offender registration regimes enacted after his offense.
- In January 2009 police charged Hagan with failing to register; a jury convicted him under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915(a)(1) (Megan’s Law III era), and he was sentenced to 40–120 months (judgment became final in 2010).
- While incarcerated on that sentence, Hagan was later charged (2015), pleaded guilty (2015), and was sentenced (2016) for sexual offenses against his son to 16–60 months, to run consecutively to the 2009 sentence (2016 judgment became final in 2016).
- Our Supreme Court later invalidated Act 152 (which enacted Megan’s Law III and § 4915) in Neiman on single‑subject grounds; subsequent cases (Derhammer, McIntyre, Santana, Muniz, Lacombe) shaped availability and timing of collateral challenges to registration laws.
- Hagan filed pro se habeas petitions in December 2021 (treated by the PCRA court as PCRA petitions). The PCRA court dismissed them as untimely / beyond its jurisdiction; Hagan appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hagan's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a habeas petition may be used to challenge sex‑offender registration statutes outside the PCRA | Lacombe permits habeas (or other non‑PCRA) challenges to registration statutes so Hagan can avoid PCRA time/eligibility bars | PCRA subsumes habeas for collateral relief; Lacombe is limited to challenges to current/future registration obligations and does not allow collateral attack on Hagan’s 2009 conviction outside the PCRA | Petition properly treated as a PCRA filing; Lacombe does not permit Hagan to evade PCRA limits for his 2009 conviction |
| Whether Hagan’s 2009 conviction under § 4915 violated ex post facto principles / was unlawful retroactive punishment | Retroactive application of registration law (and related criminalization) is punitive and thus unconstitutional as applied to Hagan’s earlier offense | Hagan was prosecuted under Megan’s Law III in 2009; Megan’s Law III has not been held punitive the way SORNA was; no automatic ex post facto invalidation applies | No showing Megan’s Law III registration was punitive; Hagan’s 2009 conviction is not invalidated on ex post facto grounds in this collateral posture |
| Whether Neiman/Derhammer (and related decisions) supply a timeliness exception to Hagan’s untimely PCRA petition or otherwise entitle him to credit/release | Neiman/Derhammer void § 4915 so Hagan’s 2009 sentence was a nullity and time served should be credited against the 2016 sentence, entitling release | Judicial decisions are not “new facts”; Hagan did not plead any statutory timeliness exception; Neiman/Derhammer have not been held to create a retroactive constitutional rule that fits § 9545(b)(1)(iii) for his petition | Hagan’s PCRA petition was untimely; he failed to invoke a recognized exception; the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits |
| Whether SORNA (or later registration provisions) as applied to Hagan’s 2016 conviction raise ex post facto problems | SORNA retroactively punishes registrants and thus violates ex post facto protections | Hagan’s future registration after release falls under SORNA II Subchapter I (applicable to offenses between 1996–2012), which Lacombe held non‑punitive | Registration obligations under Subchapter I (SORNA II) are non‑punitive per Lacombe; ex post facto claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020) (permits limited non‑PCRA challenges to sexual‑offender registration schemes when petitioners cannot obtain relief under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (invalidated Act 152, including Megan’s Law III § 4915, on single‑subject grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 173 A.3d 723 (Pa. 2017) (clarified Neiman’s effect and addressed prosecutorial authority under § 4915)
- Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 232 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2020) (held PCRA is appropriate vehicle for challenging legality of sentence based on Neiman/Derhammer when petition is timely)
- Commonwealth v. Santana, 266 A.3d 528 (Pa. 2021) (applied Muniz to hold retroactive application of SORNA punitive as to certain registrants)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held SORNA’s registration provisions are punitive and their retroactive application violates ex post facto)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 733 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1999) (Williams I) (addressed procedural due process/SVP issues under early Megan’s Law)