Com. v. Veltre, E.
This text of Com. v. Veltre, E. (Com. v. Veltre, E.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S25044-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
EDWARD PHILLIP VELTRE,
Appellant No. 21 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 15, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No.: CP-26-CR-0000318-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2015
Appellant, Edward Phillip Veltre, appeals from the judgment of
sentence after his negotiated guilty plea to possession of child pornography
and related charges. Specifically, he challenges the constitutionality of his
registration requirement under the Sexual Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA).1 We affirm.
The sole issue raised in all three of Appellant’s overlapping questions is
whether the twenty-five year registration requirement imposed under
SORNA (also known as the Adam Walsh Act) is unconstitutional under the
United States and Pennsylvania constitutions. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 7,
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10–9799.41. J-S25044-15
9). Appellant notes that the registration period exceeds the statutory
maximums for the crimes to which he entered his plea, and his actual
sentence of probation.2 (See id. at 12). In support, Appellant cites
Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003), which in pertinent
part held that the Megan’s Law II3 registration, notification, and counseling
requirements for sexually violent predators, did not constitute criminal
punishment. (See id. at 964-65).
“Because the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, our
standard of review is de novo and our scope is plenary.” Commonwealth
v. Baker, 78 A.3d 1044, 1047 n.3 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
In Commonwealth v. McDonough, 96 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2014),
appeal denied, 108 A.3d 34, (Pa. 2015), this Court affirmed judgment of
sentence, and rejected a similar challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA,
citing the principles previously enunciated in Commonwealth v. Gaffney,
733 A.2d 616, 622 (Pa. 1999) and Commonwealth v. Benner, 853 A.2d
1068, 1070-71 (Pa. Super. 2004). See McDonough, supra at 1071.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________
2 Appellant was found not to be a sexually violent predator. (See Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 2/10/15). The court sentenced Appellant to a term of probation of four years, eleven months and twenty-nine days, and notified him of the twenty-five year registration requirement at the same time. (See Sentence Order, 12/15/14). The court denied his post-sentence motion for modification of sentence. (See Order, 12/19/14). 3 Formerly 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9791–9799.7.
-2- J-S25044-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 5/6/2015
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Veltre, E., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-veltre-e-pasuperct-2015.