Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shower, W.
147 A.3d 517
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Three defendants (Shower, Martinez, Grace) entered plea agreements while Megan’s Law governed sexual-offender registration; their pleas eliminated or reduced charges that would have triggered longer or lifetime registration.
- After sentencing, the Legislature enacted SORNA (effective Dec. 20, 2012), which reclassified offenses into tiers and generally increased registration periods, potentially altering defendants’ post-plea registration obligations.
- Each defendant petitioned the trial court to enforce the plea terms (or for habeas relief), arguing the Commonwealth’s promises regarding registration formed part of the plea bargain and should be specifically enforced.
- Trial court granted relief (finding ex post facto and contract-based grounds); Superior Court, relying on its en banc decision in Hainesworth, affirmed that plea terms concerning registration must be enforced.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: plea agreements are contractual; when a registration term is part of an accepted plea, the defendant is entitled to specific performance of that term regardless of SORNA’s later enactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea terms about registration are enforceable against later-enacted SORNA | Appellees: plea bargains are contracts; where non-registration or limited registration was a term, they are entitled to specific performance | Commonwealth: SORNA changed collateral consequences; legislature may alter registration duties after plea, so Commonwealth should not be bound | Held: Enforce plea terms under contract principles when record shows registration was part of the bargain; specific performance available |
| Whether registration requirements are merely "collateral consequences" that can be altered post-plea | Appellees: whether termed collateral is irrelevant — dispositive question is whether registration was an agreed term | Commonwealth: registration is a non-punitive collateral consequence and thus subject to subsequent legislative change | Held: Court does not decide collateral-consequence status here; even if collateral, an express plea term must be honored if part of the bargain |
| Whether Hainesworth controls these cases | Appellees: Hainesworth correctly held plea terms about registration must be enforced | Commonwealth: urged this Court to reject Hainesworth as wrongly binding the Commonwealth to terms changed by statute | Held: Hainesworth accurately applied contract and plea-bargain principles and governs these appeals |
| Proper remedy when statutory change makes compliance difficult | Appellees: specific performance of plea term (i.e., limited or no registration) is appropriate | Commonwealth: legislative scheme supersedes and court should not exempt offenders from SORNA | Held: Specific performance of the pleaded registration term is available and awarded where the record establishes the term |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutor promises that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
- Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976) (defendant entitled to benefit of plea bargain even when original sentence terms conflicted with law; court modifies to effectuate bargain)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 627 A.2d 1176 (Pa. 1993) (after court accepts a plea, Commonwealth must abide by plea terms; specific performance available)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (plea terms regarding registration must be enforced; specific performance appropriate)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (recognizes plea bargains as essentially contractual in nature)