66 A.3d 765
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Heckman, a Megan’s Law registrant, initially reported Possinger’s address as his residence after prison release.
- Possinger asked Heckman to leave in Oct 2009; Heckman moved out but continued to receive mail and work at the residence.
- From Oct 2009 until his Dec 2009 arrest, Heckman allegedly lived out of his vehicle and did not inform police of a new address.
- On Dec 4, 2009 Heckman was arrested and charged with failure to comply with Megan’s Law registration requirements.
- The trial court granted habeas relief relying on Wilgus I, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later held in Wilgus II that homeless offenders have no exception to registration; the case was remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie failure to register under 9795.2 | Commonwealth contends Heckman failed to inform the State Police of a residence change. | Heckman argues no valid change of residence and that he remained at the registered address for purposes of Megan’s Law. | Commonwealth established a prima facie case; trial court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wilgus, 40 A.3d 1201 (Pa. 2012) (Wilgus II: no homeless exception; informs residence changes within 48 hours)
- Commonwealth v. Wilgus, 975 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Wilgus I: homelessness precluded residence registration)
- Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficient evidence where registrant slept near residence)
- Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 45 A.3d 429 (Pa. Super. 2012) (post Wilkus II discussion on Megan’s Law III factors)
- Commonwealth v. Kohlie, 811 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (prima facie case standard in criminal habeas contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa. Super. 2012) (habeas review standard for sufficiency of evidence)