J-S05001-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN F. DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 705 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 24, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0001630-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2019
John F. Davis appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following
his guilty plea to indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age
and related sexual offenses. He claims his designation as a sexually violent
predator (“SVP”) under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”)1 was an unconstitutional application of an ex post facto law. We
recognize that under controlling case law the SVP designation procedure under
SORNA has been held to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the
imposition of SVP status, but affirm the judgment of sentence in all other
respects.
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(e)(3). J-S05001-19
On March 6, 2017, Davis pleaded guilty to indecent assault (person less
than thirteen years of age), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7); unlawful contact with
a minor, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(a)(1); and three counts of endangering the
welfare of children, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). Davis committed the offenses
on children between the ages of two and six at the day care service operated
by his wife in their home. See N.T. Plea Proceedings, 3/06/17, at 3-4. The
trial court accepted Davis’s guilty plea.
On April 24, 2018, after evaluation by a member of the Sexual Offenders
Assessment Board (SOAB) and a hearing, the court found Davis to be a
sexually violent predator (SVP).2 See Order, 4/24/18. The court then
imposed an aggregate sentence of not less than eleven and one-half nor more
than twenty-three months’ imprisonment followed by one hundred and twenty
months of probation, with credit for time served. See N.T. SVP and Sentence
Proceedings, 4/24/18, at 38. This timely appeal followed.3
Davis presents two questions for our review on appeal:
I. Whether the current statutory mechanism by which defendants are deemed sexually violent predators is unconstitutional where it exposes defendants to increased [penalties] with the required fact-finding to be made by the trial court by clear and convincing evidence and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt? ____________________________________________
2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.58; Act 2018, Feb. 21, P.L. 27, No. 10, § 19, immediately effective (“Act 10”); reenacted 2018, June 12, P.L. 140, No. 29, § 18, immediately effective (“Act 29”).
3 Both Davis and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2- J-S05001-19
II. Whether the new SORNA provisions [applied] to Appellant constituted an ex post facto law?
Appellant’s Brief, at 10 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).4
Appellant’s argument relies chiefly on our Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (Opinion Announcing
the Judgment of the Court), cert. denied, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 138 S. Ct.
925 (2018), and this Court’s subsequent holding in Commonwealth v.
Butler, 173 A.3d 1212, 1213 (Pa. Super. 2017), reargument denied (Jan. 3,
2018), appeal granted, 190 A.3d 581 (Pa. 2018). He argues these cases
render the current procedure for designating a convicted defendant an SVP to
be unconstitutional.5 See Appellant’s Brief, at 17. Under Muniz and Butler,
we agree.
4 In addition to Appellant’s Brief, and the Brief for the Appellee by the First Assistant District Attorney of Butler County, we also have the benefit of a brief for the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, as Intervenors, filed, with permission, by the Office of the Attorney General.
5It bears noting that our Supreme Court has granted allowance of appeal in Butler:
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is as follows:
Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania erred in vacating the trial court’s Order finding [Respondent] to be [a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) ] by extrapolating the decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 640 Pa. 699, 164
-3- J-S05001-19
The Butler Court concluded that a challenge to the SORNA registration
requirements, determined to be a criminal punishment in Muniz, presented
an issue of legality of sentence. See Butler, 173 A.3d at 1215 (citing Muniz,
164 A.3d at 1218); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(e)(3).
“We review the legality of a sentence de novo and our scope of review
is plenary.” Butler, 173 A.3d at 1215 (citation omitted). Moreover, “[o]ur
Supreme Court has instructed that we must presume that statutes are
constitutional and in order to declare a statute unconstitutional it must clearly,
plainly, and palpably violate the constitution.” Id. (some brackets and citation
omitted).
In Muniz, a plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that
the registration requirements of the former version of SORNA (42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9799.10–9799.41), as applied retroactively, were punitive, and therefore
unconstitutional under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions. See Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1223.
A.3d 1189 (2017),] to declare SVP hearings and designations unconstitutional under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3).
The Prothonotary is directed to provide notice of this Order to the Attorney General, who is invited to participate as an amicus curiae.
Commonwealth v. Butler, 190 A.3d 581, 582 (Pa. 2018) (brackets in original).
-4- J-S05001-19
A panel of this Court subsequently applied Muniz in Butler, 173 A.3d
1212, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2017), holding that trial courts cannot constitutionally
apply SORNA’s SVP determination procedures. We explained that doing so
would unconstitutionally deprive a criminal defendant of the right to have a
jury determine whether the Commonwealth had proven all elements of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See Butler, 173 A.3d at 1217.
Similarly, applying Butler in a later decision, we said:
Butler determined that, as a result of Muniz, the SVP procedure is subject to the constitutional requirement that the facts constituting that punishment must be found by a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3), which requires the trial court to find the relevant facts by clear and convincing evidence, was deemed unconstitutional.
Commonwealth v. Tighe, 184 A.3d 560, 583 (Pa. Super. 2018).
The Butler Court concluded that trial courts cannot designate convicted
defendants SVPs, nor may they hold SVP hearings, until our General Assembly
enacts a constitutional designation mechanism. Instead, as we have
previously noted, trial courts must notify a defendant that he or she is required
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S05001-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN F. DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 705 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 24, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0001630-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2019
John F. Davis appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following
his guilty plea to indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age
and related sexual offenses. He claims his designation as a sexually violent
predator (“SVP”) under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”)1 was an unconstitutional application of an ex post facto law. We
recognize that under controlling case law the SVP designation procedure under
SORNA has been held to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the
imposition of SVP status, but affirm the judgment of sentence in all other
respects.
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(e)(3). J-S05001-19
On March 6, 2017, Davis pleaded guilty to indecent assault (person less
than thirteen years of age), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7); unlawful contact with
a minor, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(a)(1); and three counts of endangering the
welfare of children, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). Davis committed the offenses
on children between the ages of two and six at the day care service operated
by his wife in their home. See N.T. Plea Proceedings, 3/06/17, at 3-4. The
trial court accepted Davis’s guilty plea.
On April 24, 2018, after evaluation by a member of the Sexual Offenders
Assessment Board (SOAB) and a hearing, the court found Davis to be a
sexually violent predator (SVP).2 See Order, 4/24/18. The court then
imposed an aggregate sentence of not less than eleven and one-half nor more
than twenty-three months’ imprisonment followed by one hundred and twenty
months of probation, with credit for time served. See N.T. SVP and Sentence
Proceedings, 4/24/18, at 38. This timely appeal followed.3
Davis presents two questions for our review on appeal:
I. Whether the current statutory mechanism by which defendants are deemed sexually violent predators is unconstitutional where it exposes defendants to increased [penalties] with the required fact-finding to be made by the trial court by clear and convincing evidence and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt? ____________________________________________
2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.58; Act 2018, Feb. 21, P.L. 27, No. 10, § 19, immediately effective (“Act 10”); reenacted 2018, June 12, P.L. 140, No. 29, § 18, immediately effective (“Act 29”).
3 Both Davis and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2- J-S05001-19
II. Whether the new SORNA provisions [applied] to Appellant constituted an ex post facto law?
Appellant’s Brief, at 10 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).4
Appellant’s argument relies chiefly on our Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (Opinion Announcing
the Judgment of the Court), cert. denied, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 138 S. Ct.
925 (2018), and this Court’s subsequent holding in Commonwealth v.
Butler, 173 A.3d 1212, 1213 (Pa. Super. 2017), reargument denied (Jan. 3,
2018), appeal granted, 190 A.3d 581 (Pa. 2018). He argues these cases
render the current procedure for designating a convicted defendant an SVP to
be unconstitutional.5 See Appellant’s Brief, at 17. Under Muniz and Butler,
we agree.
4 In addition to Appellant’s Brief, and the Brief for the Appellee by the First Assistant District Attorney of Butler County, we also have the benefit of a brief for the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, as Intervenors, filed, with permission, by the Office of the Attorney General.
5It bears noting that our Supreme Court has granted allowance of appeal in Butler:
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is as follows:
Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania erred in vacating the trial court’s Order finding [Respondent] to be [a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) ] by extrapolating the decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 640 Pa. 699, 164
-3- J-S05001-19
The Butler Court concluded that a challenge to the SORNA registration
requirements, determined to be a criminal punishment in Muniz, presented
an issue of legality of sentence. See Butler, 173 A.3d at 1215 (citing Muniz,
164 A.3d at 1218); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(e)(3).
“We review the legality of a sentence de novo and our scope of review
is plenary.” Butler, 173 A.3d at 1215 (citation omitted). Moreover, “[o]ur
Supreme Court has instructed that we must presume that statutes are
constitutional and in order to declare a statute unconstitutional it must clearly,
plainly, and palpably violate the constitution.” Id. (some brackets and citation
omitted).
In Muniz, a plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that
the registration requirements of the former version of SORNA (42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9799.10–9799.41), as applied retroactively, were punitive, and therefore
unconstitutional under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions. See Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1223.
A.3d 1189 (2017),] to declare SVP hearings and designations unconstitutional under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3).
The Prothonotary is directed to provide notice of this Order to the Attorney General, who is invited to participate as an amicus curiae.
Commonwealth v. Butler, 190 A.3d 581, 582 (Pa. 2018) (brackets in original).
-4- J-S05001-19
A panel of this Court subsequently applied Muniz in Butler, 173 A.3d
1212, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2017), holding that trial courts cannot constitutionally
apply SORNA’s SVP determination procedures. We explained that doing so
would unconstitutionally deprive a criminal defendant of the right to have a
jury determine whether the Commonwealth had proven all elements of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See Butler, 173 A.3d at 1217.
Similarly, applying Butler in a later decision, we said:
Butler determined that, as a result of Muniz, the SVP procedure is subject to the constitutional requirement that the facts constituting that punishment must be found by a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3), which requires the trial court to find the relevant facts by clear and convincing evidence, was deemed unconstitutional.
Commonwealth v. Tighe, 184 A.3d 560, 583 (Pa. Super. 2018).
The Butler Court concluded that trial courts cannot designate convicted
defendants SVPs, nor may they hold SVP hearings, until our General Assembly
enacts a constitutional designation mechanism. Instead, as we have
previously noted, trial courts must notify a defendant that he or she is required
to register for life if, as here, he or she is convicted of a Tier III sexual offense.
See Butler, 173 A.3d at 1218.
The Pennsylvania Legislature has endeavored to resolve the issues
raised in Muniz (and later, Butler) by passing a law to replace the invalidated
-5- J-S05001-19
portions of SORNA, (“Act 10,” amended and reenacted as “Act 29”).6 However,
Act 29 does not amend the SVP provisions in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24,
Assessments, which still provides that the trial court determine SVP status by
the less stringent standard of “clear and convincing evidence” rather than by
the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal
punishment. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(e)(3).
Following the holdings in Muniz and Butler, we conclude that the
procedure by which the trial court imposed Davis’ SVP status constituted an
illegal sentence. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s imposition of SVP
status, but affirm the judgment of sentence in all other respects. We remand
to the trial court “for the purpose of issuing revised notice of [the applicable]
registration requirements.”7 Appellant’s Brief, at 35.
Because we vacate the trial court’s SVP order, as requested by Davis,
we need not address the remaining issues he raises on appeal, which contest
his SVP designation on other grounds.
6 SORNA was enacted on December 20, 2011, and became effective on December 20, 2012. SORNA was amended on February 21, 2018, by H.B. 631, 202 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2018), Act 10 of 2018. The Act was further amended on June 12, 2018, by H.B. 1952, 202 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2018), Act 29 of 2018.
7 See Commonwealth v. Luciani, 201 A.3d 802, 808 (Pa. Super. 2018) (remanding to trial court to discern, in first instance, what registration provisions applied to appellant).
-6- J-S05001-19
Sexually Violent Predator designation reversed. Case remanded to the
trial court for proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Judgment of
sentence affirmed in all other aspects. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/2019
-7-