Commonwealth v. Rivera
10 A.3d 1276
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Rivera was convicted in 1995 of indecent assault of a person under 13 and sentenced to five years' probation.
- A capias issued for a probation violation led to Rivera's 2000 commitment to prison.
- Megan's Law II became effective July 10, 2000.
- Rivera failed to register his address with state police after release in 2006.
- In 2008 Rivera was convicted of failure to comply with Megan's Law II registration requirements (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915(a)).
- PCRA court denied relief; Rivera appeals directing appellate counsel to raise a sufficiency/legality challenge to Megan's Law II applicability as to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the legality/insufficiency challenge. | Rivera argues he was not subject to Megan's Law II registration. | Commonwealth contends Rivera was subject to Megan's Law II once enacted. | Relief to Rivera; Megan's Law II does not apply to Rivera. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Richardson, 784 A.2d 126 (Pa. Super. 2001) (relevance of probationary status under Megan's Law II)
- Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2001) (review of legality of sentence when raised sua sponte)
- Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm., 516 Pa. 142, 532 A.2d 325 (1987) (statutory interpretation and avoiding superfluous terms)
- Commonwealth v. Cotto, 708 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super. 1998) (statutory language change reflects legislative intent)
- St. Elizabeth's Child Care Ctr. v. Dep't of Public Welfare, 600 Pa. 131, 963 A.2d 1274 (2009) (interpretation of statutory language and legislative intent)