Spann v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
169 A.3d 1084
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Appellant Leroy Spann challenged the Commonwealth Court’s decision regarding application of Pennsylvania’s SORNA (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) as an ex post facto law.
- Commonwealth Court had rejected Spann’s ex post facto argument; this Court reviewed that ruling following Commonwealth v. Muniz.
- The Per Curiam order affirms the Commonwealth Court in part (mootness suggestion by the Board of Probation and Parole) and reverses in part (preliminary objections by Pennsylvania State Police; denial of Spann’s summary judgment).
- The matter is remanded to the Commonwealth Court to enter an order granting mandamus relief consistent with this Court’s decision in Muniz.
- Justices Mundy and Saylor filed concurring statements: Mundy agrees with applying Muniz (though would have decided differently on the merits); Saylor acknowledges dissent in Muniz but joins the order based on controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA’s retroactive application violates the Federal Ex Post Facto Clause | Spann: SORNA is punitive when applied retroactively and thus violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Commonwealth/State: SORNA is regulatory, not punitive; does not violate Ex Post Facto Clause | Court follows Muniz: retroactive SORNA application is punitive under prevailing precedent; Spann’s challenge succeeds to the extent described |
| Whether Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection than federal Ex Post Facto Clause | Spann: state constitution may provide broader protection | Commonwealth: state clause coextensive with federal protection | Concurring Justice Mundy agrees with Justice Wecht that Pennsylvania Clause offers no greater protection; but majority reached state-clause argument and applied Muniz |
| Whether Commonwealth Court properly dismissed/spoiled claims as moot | Board: suggestion of mootness warranted | Spann: his challenge was not moot | Court AFFIRMED the portion granting suggestion of mootness filed by the Board of Probation and Parole |
| Whether relief (mandamus) should be entered and preliminary objections sustained | Spann: sought mandamus and summary judgment reversing police preliminary objections | State Police: preliminary objections should be sustained | Court REVERSED the portion granting preliminary objections and REMANDED for entry of mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (holding retroactive application of SORNA is punitive and violates ex post facto principles)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 97 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Kennedy balancing factors applied to SORNA; panel found nonpunitive overall)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (multi-factor test to determine whether a statute is punitive)
- Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 719 A.2d 273 (Pa. 1998) (state courts may decline state-constitutional analysis when federal grounds dispose of the case)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (procedural requirements for raising state constitutional claims)