208 A.3d 131
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Daniel C. Wood pled guilty in 2013 to statutory sexual assault for acts committed in 2012; the court sentenced him and ordered SORNA Tier III registration (lifetime, quarterly).
- He did not appeal that sentence; while on probation he failed to register and was charged in 2017 with failing to comply with SORNA.
- On June 29, 2017 Wood pled guilty to failure to comply with registration; the court sentenced him and immediately revoked probation on the 2013 conviction, imposing an additional sentence concurrent with the registration sentence.
- In July 2017 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Muniz, holding SORNA punitive and that retroactive application violated ex post facto protections.
- Wood appealed, arguing retroactive application of SORNA to crimes committed before SORNA’s effective date (Dec. 20, 2012) violated the ex post facto clauses; the Commonwealth argued SORNA’s enactment date (Dec. 20, 2011) gave fair notice.
- The Superior Court (en banc) held SORNA’s effective date, not its enactment date, controls for ex post facto analysis and vacated Wood’s registration conviction and the probation-revocation sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA’s enactment date or effective date controls for ex post facto purposes for offenses committed between those dates | Wood: effective date controls; applying SORNA to crimes committed before effective date violates ex post facto | Commonwealth: enactment date gave fair notice; SORNA was enacted before the offenses | Held: effective date controls; retroactive application to crimes before Dec. 20, 2012 violates ex post facto |
| Whether applying SORNA to crimes committed after enactment but before effective date violates ex post facto | Wood: yes—punitive effects are measured against law in effect when offense occurred | Commonwealth: no—enactment provided notice and statute should apply | Held: applying SORNA before its effective date increases punishment and violates ex post facto |
| Whether Kizak (using enactment/sentencing date) requires different result here | Commonwealth: Kizak supports applying law based on sentencing date when legislature specified | Wood: Kizak distinguishable because SORNA lacks comparable retroactivity language | Held: Kizak is distinguishable; SORNA contains no provision applying it to pre-effective offenses or sentences |
| Whether Act 10 (2018) cures SORNA’s defects and affects disposition | Wood: argued in briefing; would affect registration requirements | Commonwealth: urged consideration | Held: Court declined to decide Act 10’s constitutionality or application here; vacated convictions on Muniz-based grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA is punitive and retroactive application violates ex post facto)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (ex post facto inquiry focuses on whether law changes legal consequences for acts completed before statute's effective date)
- Commonwealth v. Horning, 193 A.3d 411 (Pa. Super. 2018) (date of offense is the critical inquiry for SORNA ex post facto challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Kizak, 148 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. 2016) (statute with explicit retroactivity to sentences applied to sentence imposed after enactment/effective scheme)
- United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (penalty increases taking effect after offense violate ex post facto)
- Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2001) (state law violates ex post facto if adopted after commission of acts and inflicts greater punishment)