Com.. v. Moore, L., 222 A.3d 16

Appellant Lee Andrew Moore was convicted in 2013 of multiple sexual offenses and originally sentenced to 9–25 years; his judgment of sentence was vacated on collateral review and he was resentenced in March 2018 to 5.5–17 years plus 12 years’ probation.
At resentencing the court informed Moore SORNA II would require lifetime registration and the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) would publish registrant information online under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.63.
Moore filed a post‑sentence motion arguing retroactive application of the Internet‑dissemination provision (Section 9799.63) violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause; the trial court denied relief and Moore appealed.
The Superior Court applied the Smith v. Doe two‑step test and the Mendoza‑Martinez factors, and treated Commonwealth v. Muniz as controlling on the effect of Internet publication.
The Court held that although the legislature’s stated intent was remedial/public‑safety, the Internet dissemination mandated by § 9799.63 is punitive in effect (analogous to public shaming, imposes an affirmative disability, and is excessive relative to the stated purpose).
Remedy: the Court affirmed Moore’s judgment of sentence but declared § 9799.63 unconstitutional as applied retroactively, found the provision severable, and ordered Moore’s entry removed from the PSP Megan’s Law website.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 9799.63 (PSP Internet publication of registrant data) is punitive when applied retroactively in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause	Moore: Internet publication functions as public shaming, injures reputation, and is excessive — thus punitive in effect and retroactive application is unconstitutional	Commonwealth/Intervenor: Legislature intended a civil, public‑safety scheme; Internet dissemination is remedial and required for public protection (and federal compliance)	Held: § 9799.63 is punitive in effect (Muniz controlling) and its retroactive application violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; removal ordered
Whether the Internet publication provisions are severable from SORNA II	Moore: Internet provision should be excised, leaving the remainder intact	Commonwealth: (implicitly) the statute should stand as enacted; Intervenor emphasized federal obligations but did not rebut severability	Held: Internet publication provisions are severable; remainder of SORNA II remains enforceable

Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held SORNA I’s publication/registration provisions were punitive in effect; analogized Internet dissemination to public shaming)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (established two‑step Ex Post Facto inquiry: legislative intent and, if remedial, whether effects are punitive)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003) (applied Mendoza‑Martinez factors to sex‑offender laws and discussed public‑notice limitations under Megan’s Law)
Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (articulated factors to determine whether a civil sanction is punitive)