185 A.3d 1202
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner Norman E. Gregory pleaded nolo contendere in 1983 to multiple offenses (including attempted rape and rape) and was sentenced; he remains incarcerated and will be subject to sex-offender registration upon release.
- Pennsylvania enacted SORNA (42 Pa. C.S. §§9799.10–9799.41) effective December 20, 2012, creating a three-tier registration system; rape and attempted rape are Tier III (lifetime registration).
- Petitioner filed a Third Amended Petition raising: (I) an equal-protection challenge to SORNA as applied to him; (II) a challenge to the statutory declaration that SORNA is nonpunitive (42 Pa. C.S. §9799.11(b)(2)); and (III) an ex post facto challenge to retroactive application of SORNA.
- After pleadings closed, the parties filed cross-applications for summary relief; the Commonwealth Court stayed proceedings pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz and later lifted the stay after cert. was denied.
- The court applied Muniz, concluded SORNA’s registration provisions are punitive in effect when applied retroactively, and held that applying SORNA to Gregory’s 1982–1983 offenses would violate the federal and state Ex Post Facto Clauses.
- Result: summary relief granted for Count III (ex post facto)—PSP may not enforce SORNA registration against Gregory for those convictions; Counts I and II were dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses | Gregory: Muniz controls; SORNA is punitive in effect, so retroactive application is unconstitutional | PSP: conceded Muniz is dispositive on ex post facto issue | Court: Granted relief for Gregory; SORNA cannot be applied retroactively to his 1983 conviction |
| Whether the legislature may label SORNA nonpunitive (statutory declaration of nonpunitiveness) | Gregory: Courts, not legislature, decide whether a statute is punitive; §9799.11(b)(2) should be struck | PSP: defended statute’s classification (implicitly) | Court: Issue rendered moot by dispositive ex post facto ruling; dismissed as moot |
| Whether SORNA violates Equal Protection as applied | Gregory: SORNA's classification and application deny him equal protection | PSP: defended SORNA (argued against plaintiff’s claims) | Court: Issue rendered moot by dispositive ex post facto ruling; dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (held SORNA’s registration provisions are punitive in effect and retroactive application violates ex post facto clauses)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (framework for ex post facto analysis: retroactivity and disadvantage to the offender)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (addressed constitutionality of prior Megan’s Law III under state constitutional single-subject rule)