Com. v. Okey, P.
Com. v. Okey, P. No. 1157 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Patrick Okey, previously convicted in 2009 of attempted luring of a child, was required to register as a Tier 1 sex offender and to verify his address upon release.
- While being released from SCI Albion in January 2015, Okey repeatedly refused to sign verification forms, be photographed or fingerprinted, or provide an accurate release address, asserting his underlying conviction was erroneous.
- Officers and a records employee testified that Okey was informed of registration duties and refused to comply; he provided an inaccurate address on one occasion.
- Okey represented himself at trial after waiving counsel; the trial court denied his motion in limine seeking to relitigate his underlying conviction and he was convicted on three counts under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(1)-(3).
- Okey was sentenced to 60–120 months’ incarceration with application of the then-mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(2)(i); he appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal.
- The Superior Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the mandatory minimum because section 9718.4 was found unconstitutional under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence to relitigate underlying conviction (motion in limine) | Commonwealth: underlying conviction is established for registration status; prior-conviction facts irrelevant to current registration offense | Okey: trial court should have allowed evidence showing his underlying conviction was erroneous, which would negate registration obligation | Denied. Trial court did not abuse discretion; underlying conviction collateral attack is improper in this proceeding and evidence was irrelevant |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting failure-to-register convictions | Commonwealth: testimony established Okey was subject to registration, aware of duties, and knowingly refused to comply or provided inaccurate address | Okey: lack of proof that he was subject to or aware of registration requirements or acted knowingly | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, sufficient proof existed that Okey was subject to SORNA, aware, and knowingly failed to comply |
| Legality of sentence / mandatory minimum under § 9718.4 | Commonwealth: mandatory minimum applicable at sentencing (per then-controlling precedent) | Okey: (argued sentence excessive; court sua sponte considered legality) | Judgment vacated in part. Mandatory minimum under § 9718.4 found unconstitutional under controlling precedent; remanded for resentencing without mandatory minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania requirements for Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (irrelevance of certain out-of-court statements to issue at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Blakney, 152 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Super. 2016) (section 9718.4 unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 121 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2015) (prior interpretation of mandatory minimums), and 145 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2016) (Supreme Court vacated and remanded re: mandatory minimums)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344 (Pa. 1998) (standard for admissibility/relevance review)