COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID FREDERICK
No. 539 WDA 2022
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED: March 21, 2025
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:
David Frederick appeals from the judgment of sentence of five years and four months to seventeen years of incarceration, followed by three years of probation, which was imposed after a jury convicted him of endangering the welfare of children (“EWOC“), indecent assault, and related charges. We affirm in part and vacate in part.
This matter comes to us on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which vacated this Court‘s order stemming from a prior non-precedential decision. Therein, we previously summarized the factual background of this matter as follows:
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with fiftеen criminal offenses stemming from his protracted sexual abuse of his biological daughter that began when she was eleven or twelve years old and continued on a weekly basis until she was seventeen
_________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
At the time of his conviction, Appellant was subject to registration as a sex offender under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA“) pursuant to
On November 14, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of sixty-two months to nineteen years of imprisonment. The trial court also designated Appellant as a Tier III lifetime registrant pursuant to SORNA due to his SVP designation. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant‘s judgment of sentence, and he did not seek further review. . . .
On July 3, 2017, Appellant filed a timely [Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA“)] petition asserting various claims for relief. . . . [The PCRA court denied relief. On appeal, we remanded for resentencing since the jury should have been instructed that both EWOC and corruption of minors required the еxistence of a “course of conduct” by Appellant.]
In the years that had elapsed between Appellant‘s conviction and this Court‘s vacatur of his judgment of sentence, Pennsylvania adopted a bifurcated statutory scheme with respect to rеgistration under SORNA. As reconstituted, Subchapter H applies to defendants who, inter alia, were convicted of committing sexually violent offenses on or after December 20, 2012. By contrast, a newer statute, Subchapter I, applies to those defendants whо were convicted of committing sexually violent offenses “on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012.” See
On remand, the trial court filed an order indicating that no SVP re-assessment was necessary and directed that Appellant‘s SVP status under Subchapter H would remain unchanged. Appellant objected and аverred that his registration status was properly governed by Subchapter I of SORNA and, since he had not been convicted of a sexually violent offense enumerated under that statute, he should not be subject to lifetime registration as an SVP. . . . The trial cоurt issued an order and opinion overruling Appellant‘s objection. . . .
On April 5, 2022, Appellant appeared for resentencing. At the hearing, defense counsel renewed his objection to the registration requirements, arguing that because Appеllant‘s offense dates straddled Subchapters H and I of SORNA, Subchapter I should apply pursuant to Commonwealth v. Alston, 212 A.3d 526 (Pa.Super. 2019). . . . The trial court . . . found that, because the victim testified that the assaults continued into 2013, Subchapter H applied. Accordingly, the prior registration requiremеnts remained and the trial court resentenced Appellant to serve five years and four months to seventeen years’ incarceration[,] followed by three years of probation, which was the same sentence Appellant recеived previously.
Commonwealth v. Frederick, 292 A.3d 642, 2023 WL 2232664, at *1-2 (Pa.Super. 2023) (non-precedential decision) (cleaned up), order vacated by 324 A.3d 441 (Pa. 2024).
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Appellant raised the following two claims:
- Whether the sentencing court erred in requiring [Appellant] to register as a[n SVP] pursuant tо
42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.10 , et seq., where42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.10 , et seq. does not apply
- Whether the sentencing court erred in requiring [Appellant] to undergo a mandatory consecutive pеriod of probation of [three] years pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.5 where [Appellant] has not been convicted of a sexually violent offense under42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(d) because the criminal information reflected a date range between June 1, 2008 and June 1, 2011, the recоrd is void of indication that the criminal information was amended, the jury did not make a specific finding as to the date of the crimes for which [Appellant] was convicted, [Appellant] was convicted of18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8) , complainant less than [sixteen] years оf age, which means that offense would have had to occurred before complainant‘s [sixteenth] birthday on August 19, 2011 prior to the December 20, 2012 applicability date of42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.10 , et seq.?
Appellant‘s brief at 13-14 (cleaned up).
In this Court‘s prior memorandum, we concluded that the PCRA court erred in subjecting Apрellant to Subchapter H of SORNA and vacated the SVP determination. Specifically, we determined that Alston, which Appellant cited at his re-sentencing hearing, directly controlled this issue. See Frederick, 2023 WL 2232664 at *4. Additionally, we granted relief to Appellant concerning his second issue, since all parties agreed that he was not convicted
Following our decision, the Commonwealth timely filed a petition for allowance of appeal in our High Court, limited to the issue of whether we erred in vacating Appellant‘s SVP designation.1 While that petition was pending, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, 316 A.3d 77 (Pa. 2024) (”Torsilieri II“), which held, inter alia, that Torsilieri failed to meet his burden of proving that “the registration and notification requirements in Subchapter H of SORNA constitute criminal punishment.” Id. at 79. Following that decision, the Supreme Court entered an order granting the allowance of appeal filed by the Commonwealth in this case, vacating this Court‘s order, and remanding fоr reconsideration in light of Torsilieri II. Pertinent here, the Court further entered an order in June 2024 vacating this Court‘s Alston decision and remanding to the trial court for reassessment due to the Torsilieri II pronouncement. See Order, 6/26/24, 399 MAL 2019.
We now dutifully reconsider Appellant‘s claims pursuant to the directive of our High Court. We begin with Appellant‘s first issue, wherein we must decide whether the trial court correctly determined that Subchapter H of SORNA applied to Appellant. This question “presents a question of law; thus[,] our review is plenary and non-deferential.” Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d 891, 894 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).
In Torsilieri II, our High Court recognized that various constitutional challenges to Subchapter H of SORNA depend upon a finding that it is punitive legislation. This would include Appellant‘s present challenge to his SVP status, as it implicates the right to trial by jury. See Torsilieri II, 316 A.3d at 100
In his counseled letter to this Court, without significant discussion, Appellant concedes that his SVP claim on appeal fails in light of Torsilieri II. For its part, the Commonwealth advances the same position. See Commonwealth‘s supplemental brief at 9-10. Upon review, we agree with the parties that Appellant is not entitled to relief. Pursuant to Ross, Subchapter H plainly is not punitive. Accordingly, there is no constitutional requirement that a jury must determine with specificity the dates of the crimes in question beforе the trial court can subject Appellant to Subchapter H. The testimony at trial bore out that Appellant‘s abuse continued into 2013, beyond the December 20, 2012 triggering date for Subchapter H. Therefore, the court did not err in designating Appellant аs an SVP based upon his underlying convictions.
Section 9718.5 provides in relevant part as follows:
A person who is сonvicted in a court of this Commonwealth of an offense under section 9799.14(d) (relating to sexual offenses and tier system) shall be sentenced to a mandatory period of probation of three years consecutive to and in addition to any other lawful sentence issued by the court.
In accordance with the plain language of the above statute, only those convicted of offenses listed in subsection (d) of § 9799.14 are subject to imposition of this mandatory period of probation.
Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Colins did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
DATE: 3/21/2025
Notes
Petition for Allowance of Appeal, 3/29/23, 68 WAL 2023.Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when, in reliancе on [Alston], it held that an offender whose offense conduct straddles the operative dates of Subchapters H and I of Act 29 is entitled to the “lower” reporting requirements of Subchapter I, where Subchapter H is presumptively non-punitive and therefore not subject to the same constitutional protections as criminal sentences.