Com. v. Hall, S. ( 2022 )

J-S34022-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
STEVEN BRADY HALL :
:
Appellant : No. 392 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered March 3, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0000980-2016
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Steven Brady Hall appeals from the order entered following his
resentencing. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a petition to withdraw as counsel. We affirm and
grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
In 2017, Hall pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent assault of a child. 1
Hall did not file a direct appeal. However, this Court granted him post-
conviction relief for his claim concerning his sex-offender registration. The
court vacated the portion of Hall’s sentence requiring him to register as a Tier
III offender and remanded to the trial court to instruct him on the applicable
registration and reporting requirements under Subchapter I of the Sex
____________________________________________
118 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(b). In a related case in Dauphin County, Hall pleaded
guilty to unlawful contact with a minor, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318, corruption of
minors, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1)(ii), and indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3126(a)(1). The Dauphin County case is not before us.
J-S34022-21
Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9799.51-9799.75.2
On June 8, 2020, the trial court informed Hall of the proper registration
requirements, including that, pursuant to Subchapter I of SORNA, he must
register as a convicted sex offender with the Pennsylvania State Police for the
remainder of his life. The court advised Hall that he had not been determined
to be a sexually violent predator.
This timely appeal followed.3 Counsel filed with this Court an Anders
brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel, asserting that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Hall did not respond to counsel’s Anders brief.
Before we assess the substance of the Anders brief, we must first
determine whether counsel’s request to withdraw meets certain procedural
requirements. See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290
(Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). An Anders brief that accompanies a request to
withdraw must:
____________________________________________
2Act of Feb. 21, 2018, P.L. 27, No. 10 (Act 10); Act of June 12, 2018, P.L.
140, No. 29 (Act 29). Subchapter I of SORNA applies to offenders like Hall
who have committed their crimes prior to December 20, 2012. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.52.
3 The court did not impose a new judgment of sentence or enter an order
concerning the June 8, 2020 hearing. However, Hall appealed, and, in
February 2021, this Court remanded to the trial court for the entry of a final
order. On March 3, 2021, the trial court entered a final order and Hall’s counsel
filed the instant, timely appeal.
-2-
J-S34022-21
(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
citations to the record;
(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably
supports the appeal;
(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and
(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record,
controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the
conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).
Counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders brief to the client, and
a letter that advises the client of the right to “(1) retain new counsel to pursue
the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the
appellant deems worthy of the court’s attention in addition to the points raised
by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877,
880 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349,
353 (Pa.Super. 2007) (alteration omitted)). If counsel has satisfied these
requirements, we then conduct “a full examination” of the record “to decide
whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187
A.3d 266, 271 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
Here, counsel has substantially complied with the requirements of
Anders as set forth in Santiago. In the Anders brief, counsel discusses the
issues arguably supporting the appeal and explains why counsel concludes
-3-
J-S34022-21
those issues are wholly frivolous.4 Counsel has supplied Hall with a copy of his
Anders brief and a letter advising him that he may raise any additional issues
before this Court pro se or with private counsel. See Petition to Withdraw,
8/24/21, at Exhibit A.
Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical requirements for
withdrawal. We will therefore address the issue counsel has identified.
Counsel’s Anders brief identifies one issue.
Did the trial court commit an error of law by finding that the
application of 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9799.63 relating to internet
dissemination provision of Subchapter I of the Sexual Offenders
Registry and Notification Act is not an unconstitutional ex post
facto law under the Pennsylvania Constitution as applied to [Hall]?
Anders Br. at 7.
The Anders brief identifies a challenge to SORNA’s requirement that the
Pennsylvania State Police disseminate an offender’s information over the
internet, pursuant to Section 9799.63. It notes a claim that Section 9799.63
is punitive and therefore is an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to
Hall, violating his right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See
id. at 10-13.
A constitutional challenge presents a question of law. See
Commonwealth v. Molina, 104 A.3d 430, 441 (Pa. 2014). Thus, our
standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See id.____________________________________________
4 Although counsel relies on the factual summary as set forth in the trial court
opinion rather than providing a separate summary, there is no factual dispute
involved in this matter.
-4-
J-S34022-21
Our Supreme Court recently addressed Section 9799.63’s internet
dissemination requirement. See Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d
602, 623 (Pa. 2020). There, the court acknowledged that the requirement to
disseminate the information of sexual offenders over the internet was similar
to public shaming. However, upon review of the statute as a whole, the court
determined that the punitive effect of Section 9799.63 was insufficient to
establish that Subchapter I of SORNA constitutes an unconstitutional ex post
facto law. See id. at 626; see also Commonwealth v. Elliott, 249 A.3d
1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2021) (recognizing that, pursuant to Lacombe,
“Subchapter I’s [registration, notification, and counseling] requirements do
not constitute criminal punishment”).
Here, the issue presented in the Anders brief challenges the
constitutionality of Subchapter I’s registration requirements. Our Supreme
Court’s decision in Lacombe is dispositive of this issue. Hence, we agree this
issue is wholly frivolous.
Our independent review of the record has not uncovered any non-
frivolous issues for appeal. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the March 3, 2021 order.
-5-
J-S34022-21
Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/7/2022
-6-