203 A.3d 1120
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In 1986 Greco pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses (including rape of his daughter) and was sentenced to 20–40 years; his direct appeal was dismissed as untimely and prior collateral challenges failed.
- In August 2017 Greco filed a motion asking the trial court to declare he was not required to register under SORNA (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10–9799.41), relying on Commonwealth v. Muniz.
- The Commonwealth argued the filing was in substance an untimely Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition; the trial court nevertheless ordered Greco to comply with Megan’s Law II registration requirements.
- Greco appealed; the trial court later characterized the motion as an untimely PCRA petition and found no timeliness exception pleaded or proven.
- The Superior Court agreed the motion must be treated as a PCRA petition, concluded it was untimely and that Greco failed to plead a statutory exception (including the Muniz-based retroactivity exception), vacated the trial court’s order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner must register under SORNA or is exempt due to Muniz | Muniz prohibits retroactive application of SORNA; Greco is not subject to SORNA registration | Commonwealth: petition is an untimely PCRA petition and merits not reachable | Court treated petition as PCRA, found it untimely and vacated lower court order |
| Proper procedural vehicle for SORNA-retroactivity claims | Greco framed it as a motion to confirm non‑coverage under SORNA | Commonwealth: such claims implicate legality of sentence and fall under PCRA | Court: Muniz-based challenges are cognizable under the PCRA (subject to timeliness) |
| Whether Muniz creates an exception to PCRA one-year time bar | Greco (on appeal): Muniz announces a new retroactive right satisfying §9545(b)(1)(iii) | Commonwealth: Muniz does not supply the required Supreme Court retroactivity holding; petition untimely | Court: Greco waived pleading the exception; even if considered, Muniz does not satisfy the exception absent Pennsylvania Supreme Court holding |
| Whether the PCRA court could impose Megan’s Law II obligations in resolving the motion | (Raised in concurring/dissent) Greco claims prior Megan’s Law versions expired | Commonwealth: argued obligations remain under prior law | Concurring/dissent: PCRA court lacked authority to modify or impose alternative registration obligations; order requiring Megan’s Law II cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held SORNA registration provisions are punitive and cannot be applied retroactively under ex post facto principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA one‑year time bar and jurisdictional nature)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Muniz does not, by itself, satisfy PCRA new‑right timeliness exception for untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera‑Figueroa, 174 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2017) (gave Muniz retroactive effect in a timely PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Bundy, 96 A.3d 390 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenges to Megan’s Law registration historically treated as non‑PCRA collateral claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul‑Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (discusses when new rules constitute retroactive rights for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Partee, 86 A.3d 245 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addressing collateral challenges to registration requirements)