Commonwealth v. Pennybaker
121 A.3d 530
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Pennybaker was convicted of rape in 1997 (a Tier III offense under SORNA) and, when SORNA took effect, became subject to lifetime registration.
- He had complied with registration previously but, after a 2013 incarceration and release, failed to update his residence as required within three business days.
- Charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(2) for failure to comply with SORNA registration, he was found guilty after a non-jury trial on April 4, 2014.
- The Commonwealth sought a mandatory-minimum sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4(a)(1)(iii) (3–6 years for lifetime registrants); the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum of 36 to 72 months.
- Pennybaker appealed, arguing that under Alleyne a fact that increases mandatory minimum exposure—the length of his SORNA registration—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the statute’s judge-based fact-finding (by preponderance) is unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of § 9718.4 mandatory minimum based on SORNA registration length violates Alleyne by allowing judge-based fact-finding | Pennybaker: the registration-length that triggers the enhanced mandatory minimum is a "fact" that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under Alleyne | Commonwealth: the registration period here is an objective, statutory consequence of a prior conviction (Tier III) and not a new subjective fact; prior-conviction exception to Alleyne applies | Court: § 9718.4 is constitutional as applied — the lifetime registration is an objective, statute-defined fact tied to the prior conviction and falls within the Almendarez‑Torres/prior-conviction exception to Alleyne |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase penalty must be submitted to jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (sentence-enhancing facts must be treated as elements in certain circumstances)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior conviction is an exception; need not be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Aponte, 855 A.2d 800 (Pa. 2004) (distinguishes objective statutory enhancements from subjective factfindings requiring jury proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. 2014) (recognizes prior-conviction exception remains after Alleyne)