F. Thorne v. PA PSP
F. Thorne v. PA PSP - 233 M.D. 2016 (RECONSIDERATION GRANTED)
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- In 2004 Thorne was convicted in Ohio of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to probation with a 10‑year registration requirement under Ohio’s Megan’s Law.
- Thorne lawfully relocated to Pennsylvania in 2005 and began registering under Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law III on February 8, 2005.
- SORNA (Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act) became effective December 20, 2012 and reclassified offenders into three tiers with different registration durations, including a provision crediting out‑of‑state registration periods in limited circumstances (42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(7)).
- In December 2012 PSP notified Thorne he was a Tier III offender subject to lifetime registration under SORNA.
- Thorne filed a petition seeking removal from the registry, arguing § 9799.15(a)(7) required that his prior 10‑year out‑of‑state registration control and thus he should have been removed on October 27, 2014.
- PSP filed a preliminary objection (demurrer) arguing § 9799.15(a)(7) did not apply because Thorne was not required to register in another jurisdiction on the effective date of SORNA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9799.15(a)(7) requires crediting Thorne’s out‑of‑state registration so he should have been removed from Pennsylvania registry in 2014 | Thorne: § 9799.15(a)(7) mandates registration period equal to time required in another jurisdiction, so his 10‑year Ohio requirement controls and he should have been removed in 2014 | PSP: § 9799.15(a)(7) applies only to individuals who were required to register in another jurisdiction on or after SORNA’s effective date; Thorne was required to register in Pennsylvania as of 2005, so the provision does not apply | Court sustained PSP’s objection: § 9799.13(7.1) (and thus § 9799.15(a)(7)) does not apply because Thorne was not required to register in another jurisdiction on SORNA’s effective date; Petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections/demurrers)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 28 A.3d 898 (Pa. 2011) (statutory interpretation follows plain meaning and the Statutory Construction Act)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (distinguishable precedent on SORNA credit where petitioner had completed out‑of‑state registration before SORNA’s effective date)