Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shower, W., 34 MAP 2015

Background

Three appellees entered plea agreements before SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) took effect; their plea terms included specific registration conditions.
The Commonwealth later sought to apply SORNA’s registration requirements to these offenders.
Appellees contended the registration terms in their plea bargains controlled and exempted them from SORNA’s different requirements.
The Superior Court affirmed trial-court relief enforcing the plea terms; the Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Saylor concurred in the result but questioned the majority’s reliance on contract principles alone and argued enforcement should rest on constitutional due process grounds, given legislative restrictions on judicial modification of SORNA obligations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea-agreement registration terms can exempt defendants from SORNA	Appellees: yes—plea terms are enforceable; they bargained for specific registration conditions	Commonwealth: no—SORNA’s statutory scheme controls registration and cannot be contractually avoided	Court enforced the plea bargains in favor of appellees (but concurrence urges constitutional due-process footing)
Proper legal basis for enforcing plea terms: contract law vs. constitutional due process	Appellees: contractual specific-performance principles justify enforcement	Commonwealth: enforcement cannot override or conflict with statutory law	Majority relies on contract/enforcement of bargains; concurrence stresses due process as necessary legal basis
Whether courts may modify plea terms to conform with later-enacted law (as in Zuber)	Commonwealth: if plea terms conflict with later law, modification is required or enforcement barred	Appellees: their agreed terms did not permit modification; they are entitled to bargained benefit	Majority enforces bargains; concurrence notes Zuber required modification to comply with law and says similar modification here seems impossible under SORNA
Whether statutory provisions (42 Pa.C.S. §9799.23(b)(2)) bar judicial relief from SORNA	Commonwealth: statute forbids courts from relieving offenders from SORNA duties	Appellees: plea agreements themselves create enforceable rights independent of statute	Court granted relief despite statutory language; concurrence flags tension and calls for further constitutional analysis

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Zuber, 466 Pa. 453, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976) (enforced plea agreement but required sentence modification to comply with law)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea bargains are an essential component of the administration of justice; government must keep its promises)
Commonwealth v. Killinger, 585 Pa. 92, 888 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2005) (courts should defer to legislative policy in refining treatment of sexual offenders)
United States v. Lara-Ruiz, 681 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2012) (plea-agreement terms can create enforceable rights)
United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) (courts may enforce plea terms based on fairness and reliance)
United States v. Randolph, 230 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2000) (due-process considerations support enforcement of plea bargains)
In re Altro, 180 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1999) (recognizing vested rights from plea agreements)