Gregory v. Pa. State Police

185 A.3d 1202
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 2, 2018
Docket245 M.D. 2015
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 185 A.3d 1202 (Gregory v. Pa. State Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gregory v. Pa. State Police, 185 A.3d 1202 (Pa. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK

Before this Court for disposition in our original jurisdiction are cross-applications for summary relief regarding the application of Pennsylvania's sex offender registration scheme for convicted sex offenders in the act known as the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 1 which is the General Assembly's fourth iteration of the law commonly referred to as Megan's Law. 2 Based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz , 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 925 , 200 L.Ed.2d 213 (2018), we grant in part, deny in part, and dismiss as moot in part the cross-applications.

On December 29, 2017, Norman E. Gregory (Petitioner), proceeding pro se , filed a Third Amended Petition for Review (Petition) against Respondent Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). 3 In Count I of the Petition, Petitioner alleges that SORNA is unconstitutional as applied to him because it denies him equal protection under the law. In Count II, he requests that this Court strike Section 9799.11(b)(2) of SORNA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.11(b)(2), which declares that SORNA "shall not be construed as punitive." He claims it is for the courts to determine whether or not a statute is punitive, not the General Assembly. In Count III, he alleges that SORNA's notification and registration requirements and related procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him under the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10. Petition at ¶¶ 16-32.

The facts of this case are not in dispute and are summarized as follows. Petitioner pled nolo contendere on March 2, 1983, in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) to charges including Attempted Rape, Rape, Robbery, Indecent Assault, Burglary, Terroristic Threats, False Imprisonment, Simple Assault and Recklessly Endangering Another Person. Gregory v. Pennsylvania State Police (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 245 M.D. 2015, filed October 3, 2016), slip op. at 2. On February 15, 1984, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of incarceration of 17 ½ to 50 years. Id. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at a state correctional institution. Id. Petitioner has been granted parole but remains incarcerated with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections awaiting approval of a home plan. Id. Upon his release from incarceration, Petitioner will be required to register as a sex offender under SORNA. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.13(2).

SORNA established a three-tier classification system for sexual offenders. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.14. An offender's tier status is determined by the offense committed and impacts the length of time an offender is required to register and the severity of the punishment should an offender fail to register or provide false registration information. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.15 ; 18 Pa. C.S. § 4915.1. Under SORNA, Attempted Rape and Rape are Tier III offenses. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.14(d)(4). Tier III offenders are required to register for the offender's lifetime. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.15.

Once the pleadings closed, the parties filed cross-applications for summary relief. Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking summary judgment as to Counts II, relating to the General Assembly's classification of SORNA as nonpunitive, and III of his Petition, his ex post facto claim. In turn, PSP filed an Application for Summary Relief as to all three counts. Both parties filed answers in response and briefs in support. 4 The cross-applications are ready for disposition. 5

Count III-Ex Post Facto Law

We begin by addressing the parties' applications as they pertain to Count III of the Petition, Petitioner's ex post facto claim. Petitioner alleges that he should not be subjected to SORNA's registration requirements based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Muniz . In Muniz , the Supreme Court held that SORNA's enhanced registration requirements are punitive in effect and cannot be applied retroactively. Because SORNA went into effect after his conviction, Petitioner asserts that application of SORNA against him violates the ex post facto clause of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. PSP concedes that " Muniz is final and dispositive in the instant case regarding the ex post facto arguments set forth in Count III of the [Petition]." Respondent's Status Report, 2/8/18, at ¶ 9.

Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit the enactment of "ex post facto" laws. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; Pa. Const. art. I, § 17. In Muniz, our Supreme Court examined whether SORNA constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto law. The Court opined there are two critical elements that must be met for a criminal or penal law to be deemed ex post facto. First, " 'it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment.' " Muniz , 164 A.3d at 1195-96 (quoting Weaver v. Graham , 450 U.S. 24 , 29, 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981) ). Second, " 'it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.' " Id. at 1196 (quoting Weaver ,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

M. Hill v. C. Mayernick (Inmate Accounts)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2026
S. Reaves v. J. Wetzel
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
D.N. Hommrich v. Com. of PA, PA PUC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
A.W. v. Com. of PA, DHS
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
V. Figueroa v. PPB
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
A.D.H. v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
A. T. B., III v. G. Little, Sec'y. of DOC & PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
S.B. v. The PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
The Com. of PA v. The A.G. of the Com. of PA
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
J. R. v. Com. of PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
S.S. v. R. Evanchick, Comm. of the PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
M.S. v. PSP, Board of Probation
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2022
S. Freemore v. DOC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
B.J. Murray v. Sec'y. J. Wetzel
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
A. Rivera v. PSP & Com. of PA
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 A.3d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-pa-state-police-pacommwct-2018.