Commonwealth v. GordonCommonwealth v. Gordon
OPINION BY
¶ 1 William Henry Gordon appeals from his judgment of sentence after being convicted of violating a registration provision (failure to report address change) 1 of Pennsylvania’s version of Megan’s Law 2 (“Act”) and sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 3-6 years’ incarceration. 3 On appeal he claims: (1) under a strict reading of the applicable Megan’s Law provisions, he is not subject to prosecution for failure to comply with the registration provisions and (2) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper regarding a letter sent to Gordon explaining the registration process. Because we are bound by the statutory language of the Megan’s Law registration provisions, we are constrained to vacate and discharge the defendant.
FACTS
¶ 2 In 1997, Gordon pled guilty in the state of Delaware to unlawful sexual penetration of the third degree (a crime substantially similar to Pennsylvania’s sexual assault statute)
4
and registered with the Delaware State Sex Offender Registry as a lifetime registrant. He subsequently moved to Pennsylvania, where he became subject to the lifetime registration provision of this Commonwealth’s version of Megan’s Law,
¶ 3 On February 20, 2007, Gordon registered with the Pennsylvania State Police Megan’s Law Unit (“the Unit”) in compliance with section 9795.2 (registration provisions). On July 25, 2007, Gordon was apprehended by Pennsylvania State Police on an outstanding Delaware State warrant.
5
During an interview with the state police, Gordon revealed that he no longer resided at the address on file with the Unit.
6
He also stated that he had become
¶4 Both the trial court and the Commonwealth concede that under a strict reading of
¶ 5 Because we must strictly construe criminal statutes and the clear language of
ISSUES
(1)Applicability of Relevant Megan’s Law Provisions
¶ 6 The crux of the issue on appeal is whether a lifetime registrant under
¶ 7 According to
(b) LIFETIME REGISTRATION.— The following individuals shall be subject to lifetime registration:
(1) An individual with two or more convictions of any of the offenses set forth in subsection (a).
(2) Individuals convicted of any of the following offenses:
18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape).
18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse).
18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault).
18 Pa.C.S. § 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault).
18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (relating to incest) when the victim is under 12 years of age.
(3) Sexually violent predators.
(4) Individuals currently residing in this Commonwealth who have been convicted of offenses similar to the crimes cited in paragraph (2) under the laws of the United States or one of its territories or possessions, another state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or aforeign nation or under a former law of this Commonwealth.
¶ 8 Moreover, under
§ 4915 . Failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders requirements:
(a) OFFENSE DEFINED. — An individual who is subject to registration under42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.1(a) (relating to registration) or an individual who is subject to registration under42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.1(b)(1) , (2) or (3) commits an offense if he knowingly fails to:
(1) register with the Pennsylvania State Police as required under42 Pa. C.S. § 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability);
(2) verify his address or be photographed as required under42 Pa.C.S. § 9796 (relating to verification of residence); or
(3) provide accurate information when registering under42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.2 or verifying an address under42 Pa.C.S. § 9796 .
¶ 9 Therefore, a literal reading of the statute clearly indicates that an individual who is subject to lifetime registration under 9795.1(b)(4) is
not
subject to the penalty provisions of
¶ 10 Judgment of sentence vacated. Defendant discharged. Jurisdiction relinquished. 9
Notes
. See
. See
. Gordon first challenged the charges in a pre-trial motion to dismiss that was denied by the trial court.
. The parties do not dispute that Gordon's Delaware crime is substantially similar to this Commonwealth’s sexual assault statute, and, thus makes him subject to register under Megan's Law for his lifetime.
. The Delaware warrant had been issued on March 21, 2007 due to Gordon’s failure lo register or re-register as a sexual offender or otherwise comply with the provisions of sexual offender registration.
.The testimony at trial revealed that Gordon registered his home address with the state police as the Stonemill Apartments in February 2007; however, when he left that apartment in May 2007 he never notified the police of the change (Count 1). Moreover, the evidence showed that when Gordon initially registered with the Pennsylvania State Police in February 2007 he was listed as unemployed; however, he had been working at a Holiday Inn since October 2006, was let go, rehired in the Spring of 2007 and then terminated from that employ in June 2007 (Counts 2 & 3) — all without notifying the state police of these changes in employment status.
. Although Gordon was only convicted of failure to report an address change, he was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) failure to report employment and failure to report termination of employment.
See
. Similar to Megan's Law offenders under
. Having vacated Gordon’s judgment of sentence, we need not address his remaining claim regarding the improper admission of a Trooper's testimony regarding a letter explaining the registration process under Megan’s Law.