232 A.3d 881
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Appellant Roland Hromek pled guilty (Aug. 23, 2013) to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child <13; sentenced to 7–15 years (Nov. 25, 2013) and informed he was subject to lifetime Megan’s Law III registration.
- Hromek filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (some withdrawn or denied as untimely); a 2017 petition relying on Muniz was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed.
- On April 15, 2019 Hromek filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Plea Agreement" challenging lifetime registration under Commonwealth v. Neiman.
- The trial court (Aug. 9, 2019) granted relief in part, finding SORNA could not be applied retroactively under Muniz and restoring the original Megan’s Law III lifetime registration term.
- The Superior Court held the filing was functionally a PCRA petition, was untimely (judgment final Dec. 26, 2013; one-year deadline Dec. 26, 2014), and neither Muniz nor Neiman satisfied the PCRA timeliness exception requiring a newly recognized constitutional right that the Supreme Court has held retroactive.
- Result: Superior Court reversed the portion of the order granting relief under Muniz, affirmed remaining aspects on jurisdictional/timeliness grounds, and relinquished jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the petition subject to the PCRA/time-bar? | Hromek styled it as enforcement of plea, not a PCRA petition. | The pleading attacks sentence legality and thus must be treated as a PCRA petition filed after final judgment. | Treated as a PCRA petition; untimely; court lacked jurisdiction absent an exception. |
| Does Muniz excuse untimeliness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii)? | Muniz renders SORNA retroactive application unconstitutional, so relief should be available. | Muniz does not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because the Pa. Supreme Court has not held Muniz retroactive on collateral review. | Muniz does not meet the exception; cannot cure untimeliness; relief under Muniz reversed. |
| Does Neiman satisfy the § 9545(b)(1)(iii) exception? | Neiman invalidated Act 152 (Megan’s Law III single-subject violation); Hromek sought relief under Neiman. | Neiman did not announce a new constitutional right for purposes of § 9545(b)(1)(iii), nor has the Pa. Supreme Court held it retroactive on collateral review. | Neiman does not overcome the PCRA time-bar; petition remains untimely. |
| Can a legality-of-sentence claim be reviewed when first raised in an untimely PCRA? | Legality claims are not waivable and should be reviewable. | Legality claims still must be raised in a timely PCRA or meet an exception; otherwise court lacks jurisdiction. | Legality claims cannot be reviewed if the PCRA petition is untimely and no exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (addressed retroactive application of SORNA I).
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (held Act 152/Megan’s Law III violated single-subject rule).
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (interprets § 9545(b)(1)(iii) "has been held" requirement).
- Commonwealth v. Rivera‑Figueroa, 174 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2017) (observing Muniz created a substantive rule that can apply retroactively in collateral context).
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2018) (explains Muniz cannot satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) absent a Pa. Supreme Court holding of retroactivity).
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (any petition filed after sentence is final will be treated as a PCRA petition).