Dougherty v. Pa. State Police of Pa.
138 A.3d 152
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Joseph J. Dougherty pleaded guilty in 2011 to two counts of unlawful contact with a minor and one count of criminal use of a communication facility and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
- At plea, Petitioner alleges he agreed to register as a sex offender for only 10 years and relied on that term in accepting the plea.
- After enactment of SORNA (effective Dec. 20, 2012) the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) notified Petitioner he must register semiannually for 25 years and that his information would be on PSP’s public website.
- Petitioner sued in this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking specific enforcement of his plea, a declaration SORNA’s expanded requirements are unconstitutional (Ex Post Facto, Contract Clauses, Due Process), and relief in the nature of mandamus/declaratory/injunctive relief.
- PSP filed preliminary objections (demurrer) arguing SORNA properly applies, mandamus is inappropriate or time-barred, due process and contract claims fail, and Ex Post Facto challenges are foreclosed by precedent for registration length.
- The Court overruled some POs and sustained others: it dismissed without prejudice contract-specific-enforcement claims against PSP, dismissed federal Ex Post Facto and due process claims, sustained dismissal of challenge to SORNA’s registration-duration requirement, but allowed an Ex Post Facto challenge to SORNA’s internet-notification provision to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleading in the "nature of mandamus" is time-barred or improper | Dougherty sought mandamus/declaratory relief to enforce plea-term (10-year registry) and argued procedural label should not bar relief | PSP argued mandamus actions have a six-month limit and PSP has no ministerial duty to alter registration | Court: Overruled PO; liberally construed pleading as seeking declaratory/injunctive relief per Taylor; statute-of-limit/mandamus objection rejected at pleading stage |
| Whether SORNA’s increased registration duration (10 → 25 years) violates Ex Post Facto Clauses | Dougherty: retroactive extension is punitive and increases punishment in violation | PSP: SORNA’s registration requirements are nonpunitive; Coppolino/Taylor control | Court: Sustained PO — Ex Post Facto challenge to registration duration dismissed (federal and commonwealth precedent) |
| Whether SORNA’s internet-notification provision is punitive (Ex Post Facto under Pa. Const.) | Dougherty: expanded public Internet disclosure and electronic-notify feature, and new data requirements, are punitive when applied retroactively | PSP: internet publication is nonpunitive; Superior Court precedent (Ackley) supports result | Court: Overruled PO — internet-notification provision may be punitive under Pa. Const.; allowed claim to proceed (factual development required) |
| Whether SORNA’s application infringes Due Process (federal and Pa.) | Dougherty: retroactive change violates due process rights | PSP: Petitioner identifies no protected life, liberty, or property interest | Court: Sustained PO — due process claims dismissed for failure to allege protected interest |
| Whether plea agreement/specific performance and Contract Clause claims against PSP are viable | Dougherty: plea promise limited registration to 10 years; PSP should be bound or ordered to enforce plea | PSP: Not a party to plea; role is ministerial; sovereign immunity; disputes belong in sentencing court/common pleas | Court: Sustained PO as to PSP — PSP not party, cannot be held in contract breach here; claims dismissed without prejudice as to Commonwealth and may be raised in court of common pleas |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodgers v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 659 A.2d 63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (pleading/legal-sufficiency standard)
- Coppolino v. Noonan, 102 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (challenging SORNA’s registration requirements)
- Commonwealth v. McCray, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005) (executive agencies may not alter sentencing orders)
- Commonwealth v. Ackley, 58 A.3d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Megan’s Law internet-notification provision held nonpunitive by Superior Court)
- Taylor v. Pennsylvania State Police, 132 A.3d 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc) (liberal construction of mandamus-labeled petitions; discussion of SORNA challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Cheeseboro, 91 A.3d 714 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PSP’s role in SORNA scheme is ministerial)
- Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (interpreting plea agreements by totality of circumstances)