Com. v. Sisler, M. ( 2021 )

J-S16025-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MATTHEW SISLER :
:
Appellant : No. 1288 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 2, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-45-CR-0002177-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: Filed: October 7, 2021
Respectfully, I dissent from the Majority decision to remand for further
proceedings. Rather, I would uphold the trial court’s decision to deny
Appellant’s post-sentence motion and would affirm the judgment of sentence.
Appellant’s mere citation on appeal to Commonwealth v. Torsilieri,
232 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2020) does not warrant relief. Requiring the trial courts to
hold a hearing every time an appellant baldly cites to Torsilieri without having
presented any relevant evidence to support his challenge in the lower court
puts a tremendous unnecessary burden on our trial judges.
Here, in the trial court below, Appellant failed to produce, attempt to
produce, or refer to the existence of any evidence that would have supported
a colorable challenge that the legislative finding in Revised Subchapter H of
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S16025-21
SORNA that sexual offenders “pose a high risk of committing additional sexual
offenses” constitutes an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.11(a)(4).
In his post-sentence motion, Appellant did not ask for an evidentiary
hearing to develop his Torsilieri claim and did not argue that he should be
allowed an opportunity to present scientific evidence to challenge SORNA’s
presumption that sex offenders are likely to reoffend. Instead, Appellant
merely asserted that he should be released from his obligations to register
under SORNA based on his citation of the decision of Court of Common Pleas
of Chester County in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, No. 15-CR-1570-2016
(Pa.Comm.Pls. 2016).
This Court has found that a defendant’s failure to present scientific
evidence to support his claim that the underlying legislative policy in
Subchapter H infringes on his constitutional rights resulted in waiver as the
appellant “failed to satisfy his burden to prove that Revised Subchapter H
provisions applicable to him clearly, palpably, and plainly violate the
constitution.” Commonwealth v. Manzano, 237 A.3d 1175, 1182
(Pa.Super. 2020). See also Commonwealth v. Mickley, 240 A.3d 957(Pa.Super. 2020) (finding trial court improperly denied the defendant an
evidentiary hearing on his post-sentence motion when the defendant
attempted to incorporate scientific studies to support his challenge to SORNA’s
legislative determination).
-2-
J-S16025-21
Moreover, our Court must be careful not to usurp the power of the
Legislature. As specifically highlighted by the Torsilieri court:
[w]e emphasize that all cases are evaluated on the record created
in the individual case. Thus, a court need not ignore new scientific
evidence merely because a litigant in a prior case provided less
convincing evidence. Indeed, this Court will not turn a blind eye
to the development of scientific research, especially where such
evidence would demonstrate infringement of constitutional rights.
Nevertheless, we also emphasize that it will be the
rare situation where a court would reevaluate a legislative
policy determination, which can only be justified in a case
involving the infringement of constitutional rights and a
consensus of scientific evidence undermining the
legislative determination. We reiterate that while courts are
empowered to enforce constitutional rights, they should remain
mindful that “the wisdom of a public policy is one for the
legislature, and the General Assembly's enactments are
entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality
rebuttable only by a demonstration that they clearly,
plainly, and palpably violate constitutional requirements.”
Shoul [v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation], [643 Pa.
302,] 173 A.3d [669,] 678 [(2017).]
Torsilieri, 232 A.3d at 595-96 (emphasis added).
While the trial court acknowledged the Court of Common Pleas decision
in Torsilieri, the trial court noted that, at that time that it denied Appellant’s
post-sentence motion, there were no Superior Court or Supreme Court
decisions that found SORNA to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates
a sexual offender’s fundamental right to reputation.
As such, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of
sentence.
-3-