Commonwealth v. Leonard , 172 A.3d 628 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S55025-17
    
    2017 PA Super 329
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
    OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    v.
    MICHAEL VINCENT LEONARD
    Appellant                  No. 1368 MDA 2016
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 21, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000181-2016
    BEFORE: DUBOW, RANSOM, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
    OPINION BY RANSOM, J.:                                FILED OCTOBER 17, 2017
    Appellant, Michael Vincent Leonard, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence of two and one-half to ten years of incarceration, imposed July 21,
    2016, following a negotiated guilty plea resulting in his conviction for one
    count of distribution of child pornography, seven counts of possession of child
    pornography, and two counts of criminal use of a communication facility.1
    Appellant was required to register as a lifetime offender pursuant to the Sexual
    Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-
    9799.41.     We vacate the judgment of sentence in part and remand for
    imposition of a twenty-five-year period of registration under SORNA.
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6312(c), 6312(d), 7512, respectively.
    J-S55025-17
    At sentencing, counsel for Appellant argued that he should be treated
    as a Tier II sexual offender, as all convictions had arisen from the same
    criminal episode and Appellant was convicted of all offenses on the same date.
    See Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/21/16, at 20-21. Counsel noted that A.S.
    v. Pennsylvania State Police, 
    143 A.3d 896
     (Pa. 2016), dealing with the
    triggering requirements for lifetime registration, had not yet been decided by
    the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See N.T. at 20-21. Counsel requested that
    the court accept the guilty plea and allow him to preserve the argument in the
    event of a decision. 
    Id.
     Thus, consistent with the terms of Appellant’s plea,
    the court directed Appellant’s lifetime registration as a Tier III sex offender
    under SORNA. Id. at 15-16, 20.
    SORNA requires that defendants convicted of certain sexual offenses
    register with the Pennsylvania State Police and contains a three-tiered system
    for classifying offenses and their corresponding registration periods.     See,
    e.g., Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 
    143 A.3d 891
    , 892 (Pa. 2016)
    (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(1)-(3)). Appellant was convicted of one Tier
    II offense, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c), requiring registration for twenty-five years,
    and seven Tier I offenses, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d), requiring registration for
    fifteen years. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(b)-(c). However, the statute also
    provides that if the defendant has “[t]wo or more convictions of offenses listed
    as Tier I or Tier II sexual offenses,” the defendant falls within Tier III and
    must register for life. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(d)(16).
    -2-
    J-S55025-17
    On August 15, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided A.S.,
    holding that Megan’s Law requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act
    to trigger the lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to
    ten-year registration. See A.S., 143 A.3d at 908. At the same time, the
    Supreme Court decided Lutz-Morrison, holding that SORNA requires an act,
    a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple
    offenses otherwise subject to fifteen- or twenty-five-year periods of
    registration. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d at 895, 898 (holding that defendant’s
    guilty plea to multiple counts of child pornography at the same time did not
    trigger lifetime registration).
    On August 19, 2016, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to this
    Court. Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors
    complained of on appeal, and the sentencing court issued a responsive
    opinion, requesting that we remand for resentencing pursuant to A.S. and
    Lutz-Morrison.
    On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
    I. Where [Appellant] was convicted on the same date of one count
    of distribution of child pornography, a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §
    6312(c), and seven counts of possession of child pornography,
    violations of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d), and all offenses involved a
    single course of conduct and were docketed to the same
    information number, should he have been sentenced to 25 years
    of sex offender registration pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.14
    and 9799.15, rather than lifetime registration?
    Appellant’s Brief at 4.
    -3-
    J-S55025-17
    We note that this is a pure question of law, and therefore, our standard
    of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth
    v. Wolfe, 
    106 A.3d 800
    , 802 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal dismissed, 
    145 A.3d 727
     (Pa. 2016).
    As discussed above, in Lutz-Morrison, the Pennsylvania Supreme
    Court clarified that Section 9799.14(d)(16) of SORNA requires an act,
    conviction, and subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple
    offenses otherwise subject to fifteen- or twenty-five-year periods of
    registration. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d at 894-95; accord A.S., supra at
    908. Thus, multiple convictions based upon charges in a single information
    for possession of child pornography did not qualify for Tier III classification.
    Id. We agree with Appellant and the trial court that Appellant’s case is within
    the ambit of Lutz-Morrison, as he entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple
    Tier I and Tier II offenses, arising from the same arrest, on the same date.
    Accordingly, per A.S. and Lutz-Morrison, the matter should be remanded for
    resentencing in accordance with those opinions.
    The      Commonwealth,         while   conceding   that   Appellant    should   be
    reclassified    as   a   Tier   II   offender   with   twenty-five-year     registration,
    nevertheless contends that Appellant has erred procedurally by filing his
    appeal in this Court.       See Appellee’s Brief at 5-10.        The Commonwealth
    employs a tortured argument to claim that 1) Appellant is not contesting the
    statutory construction of SORNA, but is instead arguing he has been
    incorrectly classified under SORNA; 2) Appellant’s registration requirement is
    -4-
    J-S55025-17
    a collateral matter administratively managed by the Pennsylvania State
    Police; 3) Appellant failed to join the Pennsylvania State Police as an
    indispensable party; 4) Appellant incorrectly filed the instant appeal in this
    Court as opposed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.                 See
    Appellant’s Brief at 5-10.     In so arguing, the Commonwealth relies upon
    Commonwealth v. Demora, 
    149 A.3d 330
     (Pa. Super. 2016), where a prior
    panel of this Court held that an appellant’s failure to join the Pennsylvania
    State Police (“PSP”) as an indispensable party resulted in a lack of jurisdiction
    in the Court of Common Pleas. Demora, 149 A.3d at 333.
    Demora is distinguishable from the instant matter. In Demora, the
    defendant’s guilty plea to one count of indecent assault subjected him to a
    ten-year reporting requirement under Megan’s Law I. See Demora, 149 A.3d
    at 331. After serving his sentence, the defendant began reporting to the PSP
    under Megan’s Law II. Id. In December 2012, the PSP notified the defendant
    that pursuant to SORNA he was required to register as a Tier III offender and
    was subject to the lifetime reporting requirement. Id. The defendant filed a
    petition seeking a determination that he was not subject to the reporting
    requirements.   Id.   The trial court concluded that the defendant had not
    established that the registration requirement was a material term of his plea
    and denied the petition. Id.
    On appeal, this Court concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
    to entertain the defendant’s petition, as the PSP had not been named as a
    defendant. Demora, 149 A.3d at 331. We noted that the defendant was no
    -5-
    J-S55025-17
    longer serving any part of his sentence, nor had the District Attorney’s Office
    taken an action against him. Id. at 332. It was the PSP’s action requiring
    the defendant to register and report under SORNA to which he objected, and
    thus, the PSP was an indispensable party. Id. We noted that the appropriate
    form of action for the relief sought by that defendant was a petition sounding
    in declaratory and injunctive relief against the PSP.
    Initially, we note that Appellant is currently serving a sentence.      He
    timely filed a direct appeal within the appropriate period.     He has not yet
    registered to report to the PSP, as he has not yet been released from custody.
    Further, Appellant challenges the requirement imposed by the trial court that
    he register as a sex offender for life based upon the court’s interpretation of
    SORNA’s requirements. This case is properly before this Court, as was the
    defendant’s appeal in Lutz-Morrison and numerous other cases implicating
    the same fact patterns and claims.     See Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d at 894
    (appellant filed direct appeal to this court from sentence and trial court’s
    notification that his convictions subjected him to lifetime registration, and did
    not join the Pennsylvania State Police as a necessary party); cf. A.S., 143
    A.3d at 898-99 (appellee had completed his sentence and filed petition to
    compel the PSP to correct his sexual offender registration status in the
    Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, joining PSP as a necessary party).
    Therefore, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence in part, as to his
    classification as a Tier III offender, and remand for the trial court to impose a
    -6-
    J-S55025-17
    twenty-five-year registration requirement under Section 9799.15(a)(2). In all
    other respects, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed in part, and vacated in part.       Case
    remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.          Jurisdiction
    relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 10/17/2017
    -7-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1368 MDA 2016

Citation Numbers: 172 A.3d 628

Judges: Dubow, Ransom, Strassburger

Filed Date: 10/17/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/26/2024