Com. v. Smith, A., 2883 EDA 2022

Aaron Ross Smith pleaded guilty on Sept. 9, 2019 to unlawful contact with a minor, criminal attempt of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), and criminal use of a communication facility; he completed a written guilty-plea form and a SORNA addendum acknowledging Tier III registration and lifetime registration.
Sentenced Feb. 10, 2020 to concurrent terms of 15–30 months on two counts and five years’ probation on the communication-facility count; directed to register as a Tier III sexual offender; no direct appeal was filed.
Smith filed a pro se PCRA petition on Dec. 29, 2021 (facially untimely), later retained counsel, and sought a hearing and leave to amend to challenge SORNA registration requirements.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, found Smith had received clear written and oral colloquies about the plea and registration, and concluded Smith failed to show newly discovered facts or due diligence to excuse the late filing.
The court dismissed the PCRA petition as untimely but noted under Commonwealth v. Lacombe that Smith may raise SORNA challenges in an alternate procedural filing outside the PCRA; Smith appealed the dismissal.

Issue	Smith's Argument	PCRA/Commonwealth Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s PCRA was timely under the "newly discovered facts" exception (claimed lack of knowledge about elements and registration)	Plea counsel failed to explain elements and registration consequences; Smith did not learn full consequences until Dec. 30, 2020 and filed within one year of that date	Smith signed and initialed the guilty-plea form and sexual-offender addendum and was orally informed at plea; he failed to exercise due diligence by not asking counsel or filing a timely post-sentence or direct appeal	Court held petition untimely; Smith knew or could have discovered the facts earlier and did not exercise due diligence, so the exception fails
Whether the court abused discretion by denying leave to amend the PCRA to add a constitutional SORNA challenge	Smith argued Rule 905 permits amendment and PCRA is an appropriate vehicle to raise the SORNA challenge	Lacombe permits SORNA challenges via alternate filings outside the PCRA; an amended, untimely PCRA would remain time‑barred, so denial without prejudice was proper	Court denied amendment but allowed Smith to pursue SORNA claims in a separate, non-PCRA filing; Superior Court affirmed

Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020) (PCRA is not the exclusive vehicle for challenging sexual-offender registration requirements)
Small, 238 A.3d 1267 (Pa. 2020) (eliminated the public-record presumption but reaffirmed due-diligence requirement for PCRA timeliness exceptions)
Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (key decision on SORNA constitutionality and its application)
Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for newly discovered facts exception under §9545)
Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (strict enforcement of due diligence in PCRA timeliness analysis)
Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect interests in post-conviction context)
Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of appellate review of PCRA denials)