Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Grace, A.
32 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- These consolidated appeals involve defendants (appellees) who received plea agreements that included specific sex-offender registration terms prior to the enactment or application of SORNA (the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act).
- The Commonwealth sought application of SORNA’s registration requirements to the appellees despite their plea terms; lower courts denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority ordered relief enforcing the plea terms; Chief Justice Saylor concurred in result but wrote separately.
- Chief Justice Saylor agreed appellees should get the benefit of their bargains but expressed concern that enforcing plea terms that conflict with SORNA may require a constitutional (due process) basis rather than only contract principles.
- Saylor contrasted this case with Commonwealth v. Zuber, where the Court enforced a plea agreement but modified the sentence to conform with existing law; he observed such a modification appears impossible where SORNA mandates different registration requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea-agreement registration terms are enforceable against the Commonwealth | Commonwealth: SORNA governs and supersedes prior plea terms; registration requirements apply | Appellees: plea agreements expressly limited registration obligations; Commonwealth must honor its bargain | Majority enforced plea terms; Saylor concurred but framed enforcement as requiring constitutional due-process support |
| Whether contract principles alone (specific performance) can compel relief from SORNA | Commonwealth: statutory scheme precludes courts from modifying registration duties; contract cannot override statute | Appellees: plea bargains are contractual promises the Commonwealth must keep; specific performance appropriate to give benefit of bargain | Majority relied on contract/plea-enforcement precedent; Saylor cautioned that contract-based specific performance may be insufficient absent due-process grounding |
| Whether Zuber controls (enforcement of plea bargains that conflict with law) | Commonwealth: Zuber does not permit enforcing terms that violate or conflict with statutory mandates | Appellees: Zuber and plea-bargain precedent require strict compliance by the Commonwealth | Saylor distinguished Zuber: Zuber’s enforcement was accompanied by modification to conform with law; here modification to accommodate SORNA is impossible |
| Whether due process requires enforcement of plea terms (fundamental fairness) | Commonwealth: statutory text and policy limit courts’ authority; due process does not automatically override SORNA | Appellees: enforcing plea terms is required by fundamental fairness and due-process principles because defendants surrendered constitutional rights in reliance | Saylor concluded due-process analysis is necessary and that plea-bargain enforcement implicates fundamental fairness warranting protection of bargain rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Killinger, 585 Pa. 92, 888 A.2d 592 (Court will not interfere with Legislature's refinements of sexual-offender treatment)
- Commonwealth v. Zuber, 466 Pa. 453, 353 A.2d 441 (enforcement of plea agreement required but sentence modified to conform with law)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea bargaining is essential; government must honor promises in plea agreements)
- Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 564 Pa. 36, 764 A.2d 20 (due-process inquiry assesses whether conduct offends fundamental fairness)
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 591 Pa. 506, 919 A.2d 931 (Pennsylvania/ federal due-process protections generally coextensive)