Commonwealth v. Reed, T., Aplt.
168 A.3d 132
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Appellant challenged Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as an ex post facto law when applied retroactively.
- The Superior Court rejected Appellant’s ex post facto challenge; this appeal reviewed that ruling.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz held that SORNA’s retroactive application is punitive and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; that precedent governed this appeal.
- Justice Mundy concurs in reversing the Superior Court based on Muniz, but states that on a blank slate he would reach the opposite conclusion (i.e., SORNA is not punitive under federal ex post facto jurisprudence).
- Chief Justice Saylor, though dissenting in Muniz, joins the per curiam order here out of respect for the controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA’s retroactive registration requirements are punitive and therefore violate the Ex Post Facto Clause | SORNA’s in-person reporting and other requirements function as affirmative restraints and are punitive when applied retroactively | SORNA is a civil regulatory scheme aimed at public safety, not punishment | Court (per Muniz) holds SORNA’s retroactive application is punitive and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; Superior Court reversed |
| Whether the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater ex post facto protection than the federal Constitution | Appellant urged review under the state constitution for broader protection | Commonwealth argued federal analysis controls or state protection is not broader | Court (via concurrence) treats state claim as coextensive with federal; Justice Mundy agrees state clause affords no greater protection than federal |
| Whether Muniz controls the outcome of this appeal | Appellant argued Muniz requires reversal of the Superior Court | Commonwealth defended Superior Court’s ruling (contrary to Muniz) | Muniz is controlling; the Superior Court’s contrary judgment cannot stand and is reversed |
| Whether individual justices may concur while disagreeing with Muniz’s underlying reasoning | N/A (issue raised by concurring opinions) | N/A | Justices Mundy and Saylor concur in the reversal: Mundy follows precedent despite personal disagreement; Saylor joins due to precedent despite dissenting view in Muniz |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (holding SORNA’s retroactive application punitive and violative of the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (articulating factors to determine whether a law is punitive)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 97 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (analyzing SORNA under Mendoza-Martinez factors and concluding it was nonpunitive)
- Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 553 Pa. 348 (Pa. 1998) (principle that a federal constitutional violation may render consideration of state constitutional claims unnecessary)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (Pa. 1991) (procedural framework for presenting state constitutional claims)