Com. v. Corliss, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 161 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S25012-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JUSTIN CORLISS : : Appellant : No. 161 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000743-1997

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2024

Appellant, Justin Corliss, appeals from the December 13, 2023 order

entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his “Petition

to Terminate Sexual Offender Registration Requirements.” After careful

review, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On July 13,

1998, a jury convicted Appellant of one count each of Statutory Sexual

Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault, Indecent Assault, and Corruption of

Minors. On August 20, 1998, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate term of four to ten years of incarceration. As a result of his

conviction of Aggravated Indecent Assault, 1 Appellant was subject to a ten-

year period of registration as a sexual offender. This court affirmed

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(8). J-S25012-24

Appellant’s judgment of sentence and Appellant’s repeated efforts to obtain

collateral relief failed. Appellant served and completed his term of

incarceration in 2008 and his term of sexual offender registration arising from

these convictions in 2018.2

On October 18, 2023, Appellant filed the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus, titled “Petition to Terminate Sexual Offender Registration

Requirements,” asserting that “the registration requirements in this matter

must be vacated as being premised on the false conviction for [A]ggravated

[I]ndecent [A]ssault, for which no evidence exists in support[.]” Petition,

10/18/23, at 1.

On December 13, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition. This

timely appeal followed. Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

1. Whether the lower court erred or abused its discretion when, in relation to [A]ppellant’s seeking to invalidate the punitive sexual offender reporting, it failed to consider whether reporting could be invalidated, based on a 1998 conviction for aggravated indecent assault, where:

A. no claims of violence or serious bodily injury existed to support this serious crime of violence; and

B. this [C]ourt, in Com[monwealth] v. Dove, 2023 Pa. Super. 131 (2023)[,] recently articulated that the act of cunnilingus is not encompassed under the [A]ggravated [I]ndecent [A]ssault statute; and

2 Appellant has subsequently been convicted of numerous other sexual offenses and ordered to register for his lifetime as a sex offender.

-2- J-S25012-24

C. the conviction remains patently infirm as no jury determination was made that [A]ppellant possessed the requisite element of scienter to properly convict for this serious crime of violence.

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Prior to addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim, we consider whether

it is properly before us.

“An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court

cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect.” In re J.A., 107 A.3d

799, 811 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.

Super. 2002) (en banc). “As a general rule, an actual case or controversy

must exist at all stages of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as

moot. An issue can become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to

an intervening change in the facts of the case or due to an intervening change

in the applicable law. In that case, an opinion of this Court is rendered

advisory in nature.” Id. (quoting In re D.A., 801 A.2d at 616).

“Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been

rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness

doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2)

the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate

review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the

decision of the trial court.” In re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(citation omitted) (emphasis omitted).

Our review of the record in this matter indicates that Appellant’s 1998

sentence expired in 2008, and that the requirement that he register as a

-3- J-S25012-24

sexual offender for a 10-year period expired in 2018. Because Appellant is no

longer required to register as a sexual offender with respect to his convictions

in this case, his “Petition to Terminate Sexual Offender Registration

Requirements” is moot. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the mootness

doctrine apply. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.3

Date: 7/30/2024

3 We also deny as moot the Commonwealth’s motion to quash this appeal.

-4-