240 A.3d 654
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Steven James Smith pleaded guilty in 2013 to two counts of indecent assault committed when he was a juvenile; sentenced in January 2014 and designated a lifetime sexual-offender registrant.
- In December 2018 Smith filed a Motion for Removal from the registry, arguing SORNA’s lifetime registration for juvenile offenders violates due process and creates an irrebuttable presumption of recidivism (and raising ex post facto/cruel and unusual punishment claims).
- The trial court treated the Motion as a PCRA petition, concluded it was untimely, and denied relief without reaching the merits.
- Smith appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the challenge was cognizable under the PCRA and whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the merits.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court erred: Smith’s challenge targeted Subchapter I of SORNA II (the then-applicable law), which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found non-punitive, so the claims are collateral consequences not subject to the PCRA time bar.
- The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for consideration of Smith’s substantive claims.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s Motion for Removal was an untimely PCRA petition | Motion is not a PCRA petition because it challenges collateral, administrative registration requirements (SORNA II) and therefore is not subject to PCRA timeliness | Trial court: Registration was imposed at sentencing under SORNA I, so challenge attacks legality of sentence and is cognizable under the PCRA and time-barred | Vacated trial court. Motion is not an untimely PCRA petition; claims are not subject to PCRA timeliness and court must reach merits on remand |
| Whether lifetime registration under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.52 (Subchapter I of SORNA II) is unconstitutional (due process, ex post facto, cruel and unusual) | SORNA’s lifetime-registration for juvenile offenders violates due process and creates an irrebuttable presumption of recidivism; other constitutional challenges raised | Commonwealth argued registration requirements apply and are enforceable under current law; trial court relied on prior SORNA I precedent to treat claim as sentencing legality issue | Court did not resolve merits; remanded for trial court to consider substantive constitutional claims (court held such challenges are not subject to PCRA time-bar) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (held SORNA’s lifetime registration provision violated juvenile offenders’ due process rights)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held retroactive application of SORNA I unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Greco, 203 A.3d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2019) (held SORNA I’s requirements punitive so challenge was cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Haines, 222 A.3d 756 (Pa. Super. 2019) (extended In re J.B. to defendants who committed crimes as juveniles but were convicted as adults)
- Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA cognizability presents a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA subsumed other forms of post-conviction relief)
- Commonwealth v. Leidig, 956 A.2d 399 (Pa. 2008) (administrative registration requirements are collateral consequences of conviction)