193 A.3d 411
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Jay Edwin Horning pleaded guilty in 2017 to multiple counts of rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) for sexual assaults committed in 2002–2004 when he was 14–16 and victims were ages 4–6.
- SORNA (effective Dec. 20, 2012) was in effect at the time of Horning’s plea and sentencing; the crimes occurred earlier under Megan’s Law II/III regimes.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent 4–8 year terms on two informations, ordered them consecutive for an aggregate 8–16 year term, restitution, fees, and notified Horning of lifetime Tier III registration under SORNA.
- Horning filed a post-sentence motion arguing (1) SORNA’s registration cannot be applied to him because it would violate the ex post facto clause, and (2) the consecutive aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive and failed properly to consider his juvenile age at the time of the offenses.
- The Superior Court found that retroactive imposition of SORNA’s enhanced reporting/registration requirements on crimes committed before SORNA is unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania ex post facto analysis in Muniz, but affirmed the sentence on discretionary-sentencing grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of SORNA registration to crimes committed 2002–2004 | Retroactive application of SORNA’s Tier III registration to Horning (offenses pre-SORNA) violates Pennsylvania ex post facto clause | Muniz is distinguishable because Horning pleaded guilty after SORNA’s enactment and was convicted/sentenced post-SORNA | Court vacated SORNA registration requirement as applied retroactively; Muniz controls (retroactive SORNA application is punitive and unconstitutional) |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing (consecutive aggregate 8–16 years) | Aggregate sentence is manifestly excessive and court failed to give adequate weight to Horning’s juvenile age at time of offenses | Sentencing court considered PSI, Horning’s age, and adult conduct; exercise of discretion was reasonable | Court affirmed sentence—no abuse of discretion; sentencing court addressed mitigating factors and statutory standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA’s enhanced registration and reporting requirements are punitive; retroactive application violates ex post facto clause)
- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1798) (framework for ex post facto categories informing retrospective penal law analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 935 A.2d 865 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for questions of law is de novo/plenary)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that sentencing judge considered relevant information when a PSI was prepared)