Com. v. Quinones, E. ( 2024 )

J-S32034-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
EDGARDO QUINONES :
:
Appellant : No. 1177 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004546-2019
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2024
Appellant, Edgardo Quinones, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench
trial convictions of unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors, and
indecent assault.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
November 2, 2022, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above-mentioned
offenses in connection with Appellant’s sexual assault on his nine-year-old
stepdaughter in 2015. On April 20, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of one to two years of incarceration, followed by five years of
probation. Appellant was subject to the lifetime registration requirements of
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6318, 6301, and 3126, respectively.
J-S32034-24
Revised Subchapter H of Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and
Notification Act (“SORNA”) at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.40. Appellant
timely appealed from his judgment of sentence and, pursuant to the court’s
order, filed a timely concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:
Should the SORNA lifetime registration requirement
imposed as part of the sentence in the matter sub judice be
vacated because the SORNA statute is facially
unconstitutional?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
Appellant argues that his sentence is illegal because the lifetime
registration requirement pursuant to Revised Subchapter H of SORNA is
facially unconstitutional. Appellant contends that Subchapter H infringes upon
his constitutional right to his reputation, and therefore, unless the statute is
narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, violates his due process rights.
Appellant insists that because Revised Subchapter H presumes that all sex
offenders pose a high risk of reoffending, the statute is not narrowly tailored
to achieve a compelling state interest. Appellant acknowledges that his
constitutional claims mirror that of the defendant in Commonwealth v.
Torsilieri, 659 Pa. 359, 232 A.3d 567 (2020) (“Torsilieri I”). Appellant
concludes he is entitled to relief. We disagree.
Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri,
___ Pa. ___, 316 A.3d 77 (2024) (“Torsilieri II”), renders Appellant’s issue
-2-
J-S32034-24
meritless.2 In Torsilieri II, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the
presumption that adult sex offenders posed a high risk of reoffending did not
violate due process, and that SORNA’s Revised Subchapter H registration
requirements were not punitive in nature and did not constitute cruel and
unusual punishment. Id. at ___, 316 A.3d at 99-100, 103-110. As our
Supreme Court’s analysis in Torsilieri II is dispositive of the issue raised by
Appellant, we discern no error on the part of the trial court in imposing Revised
Subchapter H of SORNA’s lifetime registration requirements on Appellant.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 11/27/2024
____________________________________________
2The Supreme Court issued its decision in Torsilieri II on May 31, 2024,
during the pendency of this appeal.
-3-