Com. v. Williams, S. ( 2017 )

J. A10004/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
SHAWN CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, :
:
APPELLANT :
: No. 2191 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 24, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0003673-2015
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SOLANO, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 04, 2017
Appellant, Shawn Christopher Williams, appeals from the June 24,
2016 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Northampton County Court of
Common Pleas. A jury convicted Appellant of three offenses arising from his
failure to comply with the registration and verification requirements of the
Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). On appeal, he
challenges the retroactive application of the penalty provisions enacted to
enforce SORNA averring that they violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the
United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. In light of our Supreme
Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, __ A.3d __, No. 47
MAP 2016 (Pa. filed July 19, 2017), we vacate Appellant’s convictions.
J. A10004/17
On December 4, 1998, a jury found Appellant guilty of sexual assault,
graded as a felony of the second degree. The trial court sentenced Appellant
to 4 to 10 years of imprisonment.
Following Appellant’s sentencing, the General Assembly subsequently
passed Megan’s Law II, under which Appellant was required to register as a
sex offender for ten years. Our General Assembly passed two more versions
of Megan’s Law, the most recent being SORNA which was enacted on
December 20, 2011 and became effective of December 20, 2012. Under
SORNA, Appellant is deemed a Tier III offender and subject to a lifetime
registration requirement.
Appellant has violated SORNA’s registration requirements twice: once
in late 2013, and again in late 2015. The 2015 violation is the subject of the
instant appeal.1
On October 25, 2015, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with three
counts related to his failure to complete his quarterly registration
requirement with the Pennsylvania State Police: Failure to Register, Failure
to Verify Address, and Failure to File Accurate Registration Information.2
Appellant elected to proceed by way of a jury trial, and on June 1, 2016, the
jury convicted Appellant of all counts. On June 24, 2016, the trial court
1 On June 2, 2014, Appellant pled nolo contendere to charges that he failed
to register as required in late 2013. The trial court sentenced Appellant to
five years of probation.
2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4915.1(A)(1), 4915.1(A)(2), and 4915.1(A)(3), respectively.
-2-
J. A10004/17
sentenced Appellant to three consecutive terms of 33 to 120 months in
prison.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, raising a single issue: “[i]s
SORNA unconstitutional because the penalties imposed for failing to comply
are punitive and therefore violate ex post facto laws?” Appellant’s Brief at 4.
On July 18, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion stating that we were
constrained by prior precedent to conclude that SORNA did not violate ex
post facto laws. The following day, our Supreme issued its Opinion in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, __ A.3d __, No. 47 MAP 2016 (Pa. filed July 19,
2017) (OAJC), wherein the Court held that SORNA’s registration
requirements violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.3
In light of Muniz, this Court entered an Order withdrawing our July
18th Opinion. In subsequent Post-Submission Communications, Appellant
and the Commonwealth both agree that Appellant is entitled to relief.
3 Although a plurality Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court
(“OAJC”) has no precedential value, “where a concurring opinion enumerates
the portions of the plurality's opinion in which the author joins or disagrees,
those portions of agreement gain precedential value.” Commonwealth v.
Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 556 (Pa. Super. 2011). In Muniz, the OAJC found
that SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses under both the Pennsylvania
and United States Constitutions. Justice Wecht’s Concurring Opinion, joined
by Justice Todd, found that SORNA violates the Pennsylvania Constitution
and declined to consider whether SORNA violates the United States
Constitution. Thus, the binding precedent arising out of Muniz is limited to
the finding that SORNA’s registration requirements violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution
-3-
J. A10004/17
Because Appellant was convicted in 1998 of the offense triggering
SORNA’s applicability—more than a decade before SORNA was passed into
law—pursuant to Muniz, SORNA’s retroactive application violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, Appellant’s
convictions for failing to comply with registration requirements which ought
never have applied to him must be vacated.
Convictions and Judgment of Sentence vacated. Case remanded.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/4/2017
-4-