Commonwealth v. McIntyre, J., Aplt.
232 A.3d 609
| Pa. | 2020Background
- Appellant Jerome McIntyre was convicted in 2012 of failing to register as a sex offender under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915 (Megan’s Law III) and sentenced to 5–10 years; that sentence expired April 7, 2020.
- § 4915 was enacted as part of Megan’s Law III (2004). In 2013 this Court held Megan’s Law III unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s single-subject rule in Commonwealth v. Neiman.
- McIntyre filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2014; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit and the PCRA court dismissed the petition in 2016; McIntyre raised numerous issues on appeal, later arguing Neiman/Derhammer should invalidate his § 4915 conviction.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of PCRA relief in 2018. McIntyre sought allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was granted in 2019; the Commonwealth concurred that McIntyre’s incarceration under a statute later held unconstitutional could not stand.
- Because McIntyre’s sentence was set to expire, the Court issued a per curiam order on April 1, 2020 reversing his judgment of sentence; this opinion explains the legal reasoning and addresses preservation and cognizability of the claim.
Issues
| Issue | McIntyre's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neiman rendered § 4915 void ab initio, making McIntyre's conviction and sentence illegal | Neiman (and Derhammer) struck Megan’s Law III; an unconstitutional statute is void ab initio, so conviction under § 4915 is a nullity and violates due process | Agrees in substance that one cannot incarcerate under an invalid statute, but raises procedural concerns about waiver and proper characterization | Held: § 4915 was void ab initio after Neiman; McIntyre’s conviction/sentence under it is illegal and must be reversed |
| Whether McIntyre’s claim (based on a post‑finality decision) is cognizable despite being raised on appeal from PCRA denial | Neiman/Derhammer state a void‑ab‑initio claim that implicates the trial court’s authority to sentence; such a legality-of-sentence claim is reviewable even if first raised on appeal | Argues claim may be waived because not raised in initial PCRA petition, but concedes legality‑of‑sentence framing could preserve review | Held: The void‑ab‑initio nature of the claim implicates fundamental due process and legality of sentence, so the Court may address it though first raised on appeal |
| Whether Teague/retroactivity principles bar collateral relief from Neiman/Derhammer | McIntyre contends Neiman merely applied longstanding constitutional principles and thus must be retroactive to collateral cases | Commonwealth disputes Teague’s applicability and argues Neiman may be procedural; nevertheless, Commonwealth concedes relief is appropriate in fairness | Held: Decision framed as void‑ab‑initio (not a new procedural rule): relief is proper because no valid statutory basis existed to convict or imprison McIntyre |
| Effect of sentence expiration on relief and jurisdiction | McIntyre sought reversal and discharge; request expedited due to imminent sentence expiration | Commonwealth acknowledged it could not defend continued incarceration but noted procedural complications | Held: Court reversed the judgment of sentence; though sentence expired (affecting habeas/PCRA relief limits), Court issued per curiam reversal and explains reasons in this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (striking Megan’s Law III as violating the single‑subject rule)
- Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 173 A.3d 723 (Pa. 2017) (applying Neiman to bar prosecution under § 4915 after Neiman)
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1879) (an unconstitutional law is void; convictions under it are illegal and void)
- Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2001) (due process violated where statute, as properly interpreted, did not prohibit the charged conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (challenges to sentencing authority based on later‑invalidated statutes implicate legality of sentence and may be reviewed)
- Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 177 A.3d 182 (Pa. 2018) (PCRA cognizability of legality‑of‑sentence claims where sentencing statute later invalidated)
- Glen‑Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006) (void‑ab‑initio doctrine: unconstitutional statute treated as never having existed)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA decision; discussed by parties though distinguished here)