Com. v. Kerns, S.
220 A.3d 607
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- In 2000 Appellant Scott Kerns committed sexual offenses against a child under 13 and entered an open guilty plea to one count of IDSI on May 14, 2001.
- At the plea hearing the court deferred sentencing pending a SOAB evaluation under Megan’s Law II and warned of a possible SVP hearing and registration.
- After a SOAB evaluation the trial court designated Kerns an SVP on January 18, 2002, sentenced him to 7½–20 years, and informed him of lifetime sex‑offender registration; direct appeal was unsuccessful and the judgment became final in 2004.
- Kerns pursued numerous collateral petitions (multiple PCRA filings); on December 26, 2017 he filed a petition styled as a nunc pro tunc motion seeking to vacate or enforce the plea on the ground that registration and SVP designation were not part of his plea.
- The trial court denied relief (March 14, 2018); the Superior Court affirmed, holding that when sex‑offender statutes are in force registration is an implied term of a plea unless non‑registration was an express contractual term, and that a hearing was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was breached by imposition of SVP designation and lifetime registration | Kerns: plea (as written) contained no term about registration or SVP; registration exceeded the bargained‑for exchange | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Megan’s Law was in force for the offense; registration and the SVP process were contemplated and therefore an implied term unless non‑registration was expressly promised | Held: No breach—when registration law is in effect registration is an implied term of the plea absent an express non‑registration promise |
| Whether the court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing | Kerns: court must hold a hearing to evaluate his claims | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: claim is contractual/legal; plea‑enforcement analysis is a question of law and did not require additional factfinding | Held: No abuse of discretion; hearing not required |
| Whether denial violated due process/equal protection because Kerns did not receive the Commonwealth’s answer before the order | Kerns: he received the Commonwealth’s answer only after the court’s order and had no chance to rebut | Commonwealth: certificate of service shows answer filed and served; no new issues were raised and Kerns showed no prejudice | Held: Issue waived for inadequate briefing; in any event no prejudice shown |
| Whether the petition was procedurally proper or time‑barred under the PCRA | Kerns: styled petition as nunc pro tunc motion under §5505 to open/vacate | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: challenge to plea consequences can be treated as plea‑enforcement outside PCRA; if treated as PCRA it would be untimely | Held: Court treated it as a plea‑enforcement (contract) claim outside the PCRA; if it were a PCRA claim it would be untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Martinez, 147 A.3d 517 (Pa. 2016) (plea bargains analyzed and enforced under contract principles; specific performance available)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (plea structured to avoid registration can create enforceable non‑registration term)
- Commonwealth v. Farabaugh, 136 A.3d 995 (Pa. Super. 2016) (registration consequence can be implied in plea when law applies)
- Commonwealth v. Giannantonio, 114 A.3d 429 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sex‑offender registration is part of plea when statutes are in effect unless expressly waived)
- Commonwealth v. Nase, 104 A.3d 528 (Pa. Super. 2014) (guilty plea to offenses subject to registration makes registration consequences part of plea negotiations)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (discusses legality‑of‑sentence claims under the PCRA)