Filed under: Sex Crimes by Contributor @ November 17, 2018
On December 20, 2012, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) became effective and repealed and replaced all prior versions of Megan’s Law.
On July 19, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided in Commonwealth v. Muniz, that the new SORNA requirements are punitive (punishment) and cannot be applied to a defendant retroactively. Essentially, as a matter of fairness, SORNA cannot be applied to those who committed sex offenses before SORNA became law. Any person whose offense occurred before the enactment of SORNA in December 2012 would not be required to register as a sexual offender and those placed on the registry for offenses committed before that date would be subject to removal.
In February, the PA Legislature amended the unconstitutional portions of SORNA in “Act 10.” The new legislation provides a mechanism for possible removal from the registry for a lifetime registrant after a term of 25 years and offenders in compliance with SORNA’s in-person reporting requirements for three years can appear in-person once a year and complete the rest of their reporting requirements electronically.
Since Governor Wolfe signed Act 10 into law, some Pennsylvania courts have ruled that the amended SORNA is still unconstitutional when applied to some registrants:
Commonwealth v. Torsilieri was decided in Chester County. The defendant’s offense occurred after SORNA was enacted in 2012. Because of the amended version of SORNA, the defendant had to register for life. The judge ruled that the amended version of SORNA still violated defendant’s constitutional rights. Therefore, the judge concluded that the defendant does not have to register for life.
Commonwealth v. Lacombe was decided in Montgomery County. Lacombe was a Norristown police officer who was convicted of a sex offense and sentenced before the amended SORNA became law. After Act 10 became law, he had to register as a sex offender for life. The judge ruled that the amended SORNA was not applicable to someone who committed a sex offense before it became law. The judge found the changes in SORNA “illusory,” and the retroactive application of SORNA was still punitive.
With these rulings, the future of the amended SORNA is uncertain and more claims against the constitutionality of SORNA are likely to arise. If you are a PA registrant who committed a sex offense before December 20, 2012, contact us now. You may have a case to challenge your registration requirements under SORNA.
UPDATE: There are many people in Pennsylvania who are subject to SORNA that would have had a claim based on T.S. v. PSP, 231 A.3d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (sex offender registration unconstitutional as applied to an individual whose offenses predated any registration scheme, in violation of ex post facto clause). However, the Supreme Court reversed T.S. v. PSP based on its holding in LaCombe that Subchapter I registration requirements are not punitive. Because the Subchapter I requirements are not punitive, it doesn’t matter that a judge did not impose the requirements as part of a sentence. This holding has been devastating for those looking for relief from SORNA restrictions. There are still some valid claims, but they are few and far between. SEPTEMBER 2022 UPDATE: A recent case from Chester County, Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, has found on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that SORNA is unconstitutional. Check out our most recent article discussing that case for more details.
Yes, it is crazy the way reporting requirements have changed over and over again. You should have yours evaluated to make sure that you aren’t able to have it declared unconstitutional.
I have recently been harassed and information has been misused for the purpose of getting me fired from my job. I feel I have a case to challenge megans law as a whole and the effectiveness it has in todays modern world. The world we life in today is nothing like how things were when megans law was created. I feel it is more punitive and misused now than ever. If I have a background check for an employer I will only be ineligible because of megans law. My criminal conviction doesn’t even show up. That is punitive.
Yes the LaCombe case, which has been upheld by the Superior Court since we wrote the article above, established that Megan’s Law is an unconstitutionally retroactive law when applied to crimes that were committed before it existed. Please contact us to get more information if you are being subjected to a version of Megan’s law that did not exist when your crime was committed.
Do you do anything for SVPs? So many horrible things has gone down with our family. The SOAB deemed husband an SVP and went on to profit from his lifetime mandatory treatment with the same. Before Act 10 I believe he was able to petition court to be removed. i can’t figure out if that is even an option. He can’t hold a job and when he does get one an over zealous state cop calls to “verify” with personal commentary and he gets fired. Multiple employers. Crime was in 90’s conviction was 2001. Sentence was 3 to 7. Could not find place acceptable to parole til 5 years even tho he was paroled at 3.5 During mandatory treatment was violated twice by group for bogus tech violations. Treatment provider was sleeping with his parole officer. The SOAB IS SO corrupt. He is no longer on probation or a parole. The last violation the judge knew the rep of Forensic Treatment specialists and resentenced him to 9 months and NO tail. So here we are dealing with the registry with our family being punished over and over again. I am of modest means. I know someone in ur firm wants a challenge pro bono to remove SVP status. 10 year Meganversarry was November.
Yes I agree that crimes committed before 1996 should not have been retroactive before the law was enacted. I have been a registrant for 16years since my release in 2004 and life has been a living hell. I’m all for the laws that protect children, however placing me on the website violates my constitutional rights to live my life without the threat of people in the neighborhood harassing me and running me from my established residency. Although I still maintain my innocence of the charges against me I do abide by the law. I’m 60 years old and I want what’s left of my life to be my own and to have this scarlet letter removed from my chest. Since the law was enacted in 1996 two years after my subsequent conviction I can’t help but feel I’m being punished twice for the rest of my life. Killing murder, arsonist, drug pushers welfare cheats, strong arm robbers home invaders none of these have extra restraints placed on their lives so the conditionality of Megan’s law therefore is grounds for a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.
I was 13 years old when I committed an INCOHATE Sexual Offense, I was arrested for that Offense when I was 19 years old, sentenced to 2-8 years in a S.C.I, and made a S.V.P. My crime occured on October 13th 1998, in 2012, I was released from prison in 2012, in 2013, I was charged with violating 4915.1, when Muniz was decided in 2017, I filed a p.c.r.a arguing Muniz was Retroactive, I went to the state Supreme Court only to be denied… I wanted to file a Cert petition but my sentence expired on May 6th 2019, thus screwing me from arguing on Cert… In October of 2019, com vs Haines was decided, in regards to Juvenile offenders charged as adults… I filed a petition for State Writ of Habeas Corpus, and won, and was removed from the registry and my svp status voided… Now my question, can my conviction for section 4915.1 be declared void also under section 9545b1ii, with an exception to com vs Turner, where Haines held I was never suppose to register ever in the first place…. this conviction almost 7 years ago still shows up on my background checks even tho my conviction and registration status does not, screwing me from employment, because at one time even tho I’m not now, was on the registry…
I was arrested on December 18, 1998, and charged with have a sexual relationship with an underage girl during the months of August and September of 1998. During the time that the alleged crimes were to have taken place, during my arrest, and at the time of my sentencing (February 7, 2000) Megan’s Law I was in effect, and pursuant to Megan’s Law I anyone convicted of Rape/IDSI could only receive a period of registration not to exceed 10 years on an annual bases. I was convicted of IDSI, I received a sentence of 7 to 14 years, during my sentencing on February 7, 2000 I was informed by the assistant District Attorney that I would be required to register for a period of 10 years under the remaining sections of Megan’s Law I. On December 18, 2012, I completed the expiration of my 14 year maximum sentence and was released from SCI-FRACKVILLE. My released date as you can see was just 2 days before Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), went into effect. But as I stated above during my sentencing on February 7, 2000 I was informed that my period of registration upon my released was only for 10 years. But to my surprise when I reported to the Pennsylvania State Police to register a new address I was informed by the trooper who handled the Megan’s Law section that my period of registration had been changed from 10 years on an annual bases pursuant to Megan’s Law I, to lifetime on a quarterly bases now pursuant to Megan’s Law II, which went into effect in July of 2000, while I was still incarcerated on the alleged sexual offense. The on September 23, 2013 I was again arrested and charged pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.1, §§ (A1.1), and (A1.2). I was sentenced to serve a sentence of 40 to 80 months in State Prison. During my second term of incarceration the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made it decision in the case of Commonwealth vs. Jose M. Muniz, No. 47 MAP 2016, In that decision the PA Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court which held that Sex Offender Registration was not unconstitutional for violating ex post facto law. The Supreme court half that 1) SORNA’s registration provisions constituted punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as non punitive; 2) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violated the federal ex post facto clause; and 3) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violated the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The case of Muniz, was decided on July 19, 2017, After learning of this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court I immediately filed a Petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Counsel was appointed and counsel did file an amended PCRA Petition, and an evidentiary hearing was held. My attorney and I were not allow during the hearing to make any arguments regarding the ex post facto. My attorney was ordered to file an appellant Brief, which he did. The Court of Common Pleas Judge Rita D. Hathaway, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania ruled that I was time barred and dismissed my PCRA Petition, I filed a notice of appeal, my East concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, but ended up completing the inspiration of my maximum 80 month sentence before I could receive a Briefing schedule for the Pennsylvania Superior Court for the Western District. I have a Preliminary hearing scheduled for February 1, 2021, where I have been again charged with violating 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.1, and this time 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.2. Now it is my understanding that since both 4915, 4915.1, and 4915.2 were all enacted pursuant to SORNA, then anyone who allegedly committed their original sexual offense prior to the effective date of SORNA, can not be criminally charged with violating either 4915.1 or 4915.2, because those laws were not in effect at the time the sex offense was committed. I do believe that pursuant to Megan’s Law I, there was no criminal punishment for a person who failed to register or who failed to verify their address or be Photographed. I remember reading a case law while I was serving my 40 to 80 months sentence wherein which one of the Judges in his concurring opinions stated that Megan’s Law I was never to be mandatory unless the defendant had been prove to be an SVP, and if not sex offender registration was to be a voluntary thing to help people convicted of a sexual offense make parole and the community they plained on moving into accept them because they were willing to admit their wrong doing. I was determined not to be a sexually violent predator. My constitutional rights have been being violated for over 20 years now, and because I can not afford to pay for a top notch lawyer I get screwed in the end, because the Public Defender that get appointed claim that they are not allowed to challenge an arrest as being unconstitutional or file anything like a State Writ of Habeas corpus, or a Writ of mandamus on behalf or the defendant. It is mine and many other people’s opinions that all forms of a sex offender registration lists need to be fully abolished. There is evidence that will show that more youths are being sold into child prostitution since the enactment of a sex offender registry, and public website. These registries now allow people who sexually prostitute youth, and young children to now go directly to the best customer, being able to learn everything about all convicted sex offenders who prefer young and youth children. 10 to 15 minutes on a computer any one can learn what age of a victim a convicted sex offender prefers and who long there sexual relationship lasted with their victim, if it was a one time thing, then probably not a good candidate to try and get as a customer, but someone who had an inappropriate inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor for many years May be a better choice. So these sex offender registries that are allegedly designed to protect children in the communities are actually hurting children and the communities. Thank you. Douglas T.
I was sentenced in 2004 on criminal solicitation to commit i.a. I was not to register before 2012. With sorna being repealed should I not have been removed from Megan’s law?
The LaCombe case has been reversed so that there are now only limited challenges in this area of the law. You should give us a call to review all the facts of your case.
I have to register and I committed no crime. Despite hiring a new attorney and proving entrapment, Oconto County Wisconsin still felt the need to place me in prison. There was a woman named Brynn Larsen who actually committed sexual assault of a child and she was only given nine months more than myself. There is more to this justice system than meets the eye.
I was convicted of kidnapping in 1990, and I.D.S.I. in 1991 all steming from the same case. Megan’s law was not even a law yet, but just as I was finishing my 20 year max sentence I was informed that I had to register. No Judge ever sentenced me too this as Megan’s law did not exist at the time of sentencing. I served my sentence and then the state police sentenced me too lifetime registration, I have spent 12 1/2 on the registry that I was not sentenced to.
If you committed no crime and proved entrapment they must have put you in jail on other charges? But I can only speculate as I’m not licensed outside the state of Pennsylvania.
There probably is nothing that we can do to help you. You would have had a claim based on T.S. v. PSP, 231 A.3d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (sex offender registration unconstitutional as applied to an individual whose offenses predated any registration scheme, in violation of ex post facto clause). However, the Supreme Court reversed T.S. v. PSP based on its holding in LaCombe that Subchapter I registration requirements are not punitive. Because the Subchapter I requirements are not punitive, it doesn’t matter that a judge did not impose the requirements as part of a sentence.
Steve, What is your legal opinion in regards to the above questions in light of the August 22, 2022, decision Comm. of PA v. Torsilieri, out of the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County in case 15-CR-0001570-2016? ALD
Torsilieri just lets the Genie out of the bottle again, as even in Chester County the precedent will only last until the inevitable appeal (and possibly much longer if he wins). But other counties are not bound to follow it and may not. It certainly will provide a lot of excitement and litigation in Court in the near term as lawyers and Judges sort through its application. Check out the article we wrote on that case back in August.
Steve,
I was convicted of Sexual Assault in 2001 and part of my sentencing I would not have to register. Then just before I was realeased I was told I had to register for 10 yrs then 8 yrs or so into that it went to 25 yrs and then to lifetime quarterly and finally back to lifetime annually. My question for you is, with no prior convictions and none since, how can they continue to change my registration requirements? Should I not be held to what I was sentenced to? Even though I’ve been fortunate enough to not have being on the list affect my life and lively hood too much it has cost me some deserving positions in my career. Please let me know if there is way that I could get removed or knocked back down and out of this lifetime situation.
It’s not as clear as you would think. You would need to have some solid proof that your plea negotiations included a term that you would not need to register. Believe it or not, even people who were not subject to SORNA registration because it didn’t yet exist still have to register under the new law. But you really should hire a lawyer to look at all of the circumstances of your case in order to be able to properly advise you about what you should do.
I have been on the registry for 24 years (2001)and am nearing the 25-year (2026) compliance requirement to petition for removal under 42 Pa C.S. § 9799.59. Do you handle these type of petitions, if so have you been successful in removing any lifetime registrants from the PA registry?
23 comments:
I was sentenced in 2008, had to register as a 10 year then went to lifetime, then to 25 years, and now I’m back at 10 years.
Yes, it is crazy the way reporting requirements have changed over and over again. You should have yours evaluated to make sure that you aren’t able to have it declared unconstitutional.
I have recently been harassed and information has been misused for the purpose of getting me fired from my job. I feel I have a case to challenge megans law as a whole and the effectiveness it has in todays modern world. The world we life in today is nothing like how things were when megans law was created. I feel it is more punitive and misused now than ever. If I have a background check for an employer I will only be ineligible because of megans law. My criminal conviction doesn’t even show up. That is punitive.
So just a question I have been wondering for about 24 years….
What about people convicted prior to ANY Megan’s Law requirements??? I was convicted in 1994, how is this law even remotely applicable to me???
Yes the LaCombe case, which has been upheld by the Superior Court since we wrote the article above, established that Megan’s Law is an unconstitutionally retroactive law when applied to crimes that were committed before it existed. Please contact us to get more information if you are being subjected to a version of Megan’s law that did not exist when your crime was committed.
Do you do anything for SVPs? So many horrible things has gone down with our family. The SOAB deemed husband an SVP and went on to profit from his lifetime mandatory treatment with the same. Before Act 10 I believe he was able to petition court to be removed. i can’t figure out if that is even an option. He can’t hold a job and when he does get one an over zealous state cop calls to “verify” with personal commentary and he gets fired. Multiple employers. Crime was in 90’s conviction was 2001. Sentence was 3 to 7. Could not find place acceptable to parole til 5 years even tho he was paroled at 3.5 During mandatory treatment was violated twice by group for bogus tech violations. Treatment provider was sleeping with his parole officer. The SOAB IS SO corrupt. He is no longer on probation or a parole. The last violation the judge knew the rep of Forensic Treatment specialists and resentenced him to 9 months and NO tail. So here we are dealing with the registry with our family being punished over and over again. I am of modest means. I know someone in ur firm wants a challenge pro bono to remove SVP status. 10 year Meganversarry was November.
Yes I agree that crimes committed before 1996 should not have been retroactive before the law was enacted. I have been a registrant for 16years since my release in 2004 and life has been a living hell. I’m all for the laws that protect children, however placing me on the website violates my constitutional rights to live my life without the threat of people in the neighborhood harassing me and running me from my established residency. Although I still maintain my innocence of the charges against me I do abide by the law. I’m 60 years old and I want what’s left of my life to be my own and to have this scarlet letter removed from my chest. Since the law was enacted in 1996 two years after my subsequent conviction I can’t help but feel I’m being punished twice for the rest of my life. Killing murder, arsonist, drug pushers welfare cheats, strong arm robbers home invaders none of these have extra restraints placed on their lives so the conditionality of Megan’s law therefore is grounds for a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.
I was convicted in 1990 and upon my realise the pbbp placed me on it while on supervisor. I was never sentenced to itthis law
I was 13 years old when I committed an INCOHATE Sexual Offense, I was arrested for that Offense when I was 19 years old, sentenced to 2-8 years in a S.C.I, and made a S.V.P. My crime occured on October 13th 1998, in 2012, I was released from prison in 2012, in 2013, I was charged with violating 4915.1, when Muniz was decided in 2017, I filed a p.c.r.a arguing Muniz was Retroactive, I went to the state Supreme Court only to be denied… I wanted to file a Cert petition but my sentence expired on May 6th 2019, thus screwing me from arguing on Cert… In October of 2019, com vs Haines was decided, in regards to Juvenile offenders charged as adults… I filed a petition for State Writ of Habeas Corpus, and won, and was removed from the registry and my svp status voided… Now my question, can my conviction for section 4915.1 be declared void also under section 9545b1ii, with an exception to com vs Turner, where Haines held I was never suppose to register ever in the first place…. this conviction almost 7 years ago still shows up on my background checks even tho my conviction and registration status does not, screwing me from employment, because at one time even tho I’m not now, was on the registry…
Please give us a call so that we can fully discuss this case.
I was arrested on December 18, 1998, and charged with have a sexual relationship with an underage girl during the months of August and September of 1998. During the time that the alleged crimes were to have taken place, during my arrest, and at the time of my sentencing (February 7, 2000) Megan’s Law I was in effect, and pursuant to Megan’s Law I anyone convicted of Rape/IDSI could only receive a period of registration not to exceed 10 years on an annual bases. I was convicted of IDSI, I received a sentence of 7 to 14 years, during my sentencing on February 7, 2000 I was informed by the assistant District Attorney that I would be required to register for a period of 10 years under the remaining sections of Megan’s Law I. On December 18, 2012, I completed the expiration of my 14 year maximum sentence and was released from SCI-FRACKVILLE. My released date as you can see was just 2 days before Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), went into effect. But as I stated above during my sentencing on February 7, 2000 I was informed that my period of registration upon my released was only for 10 years. But to my surprise when I reported to the Pennsylvania State Police to register a new address I was informed by the trooper who handled the Megan’s Law section that my period of registration had been changed from 10 years on an annual bases pursuant to Megan’s Law I, to lifetime on a quarterly bases now pursuant to Megan’s Law II, which went into effect in July of 2000, while I was still incarcerated on the alleged sexual offense. The on September 23, 2013 I was again arrested and charged pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.1, §§ (A1.1), and (A1.2). I was sentenced to serve a sentence of 40 to 80 months in State Prison. During my second term of incarceration the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made it decision in the case of Commonwealth vs. Jose M. Muniz, No. 47 MAP 2016, In that decision the PA Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court which held that Sex Offender Registration was not unconstitutional for violating ex post facto law. The Supreme court half that 1) SORNA’s registration provisions constituted punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as non punitive; 2) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violated the federal ex post facto clause; and 3) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violated the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The case of Muniz, was decided on July 19, 2017, After learning of this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court I immediately filed a Petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Counsel was appointed and counsel did file an amended PCRA Petition, and an evidentiary hearing was held. My attorney and I were not allow during the hearing to make any arguments regarding the ex post facto. My attorney was ordered to file an appellant Brief, which he did. The Court of Common Pleas Judge Rita D. Hathaway, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania ruled that I was time barred and dismissed my PCRA Petition, I filed a notice of appeal, my East concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, but ended up completing the inspiration of my maximum 80 month sentence before I could receive a Briefing schedule for the Pennsylvania Superior Court for the Western District. I have a Preliminary hearing scheduled for February 1, 2021, where I have been again charged with violating 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.1, and this time 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4915.2. Now it is my understanding that since both 4915, 4915.1, and 4915.2 were all enacted pursuant to SORNA, then anyone who allegedly committed their original sexual offense prior to the effective date of SORNA, can not be criminally charged with violating either 4915.1 or 4915.2, because those laws were not in effect at the time the sex offense was committed. I do believe that pursuant to Megan’s Law I, there was no criminal punishment for a person who failed to register or who failed to verify their address or be Photographed. I remember reading a case law while I was serving my 40 to 80 months sentence wherein which one of the Judges in his concurring opinions stated that Megan’s Law I was never to be mandatory unless the defendant had been prove to be an SVP, and if not sex offender registration was to be a voluntary thing to help people convicted of a sexual offense make parole and the community they plained on moving into accept them because they were willing to admit their wrong doing. I was determined not to be a sexually violent predator. My constitutional rights have been being violated for over 20 years now, and because I can not afford to pay for a top notch lawyer I get screwed in the end, because the Public Defender that get appointed claim that they are not allowed to challenge an arrest as being unconstitutional or file anything like a State Writ of Habeas corpus, or a Writ of mandamus on behalf or the defendant. It is mine and many other people’s opinions that all forms of a sex offender registration lists need to be fully abolished. There is evidence that will show that more youths are being sold into child prostitution since the enactment of a sex offender registry, and public website. These registries now allow people who sexually prostitute youth, and young children to now go directly to the best customer, being able to learn everything about all convicted sex offenders who prefer young and youth children. 10 to 15 minutes on a computer any one can learn what age of a victim a convicted sex offender prefers and who long there sexual relationship lasted with their victim, if it was a one time thing, then probably not a good candidate to try and get as a customer, but someone who had an inappropriate inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor for many years May be a better choice. So these sex offender registries that are allegedly designed to protect children in the communities are actually hurting children and the communities. Thank you. Douglas T.
I was sentenced in 2004 on criminal solicitation to commit i.a. I was not to register before 2012. With sorna being repealed should I not have been removed from Megan’s law?
The LaCombe case has been reversed so that there are now only limited challenges in this area of the law. You should give us a call to review all the facts of your case.
I have to register and I committed no crime. Despite hiring a new attorney and proving entrapment, Oconto County Wisconsin still felt the need to place me in prison. There was a woman named Brynn Larsen who actually committed sexual assault of a child and she was only given nine months more than myself. There is more to this justice system than meets the eye.
I was convicted of kidnapping in 1990, and I.D.S.I. in 1991 all steming from the same case. Megan’s law was not even a law yet, but just as I was finishing my 20 year max sentence I was informed that I had to register. No Judge ever sentenced me too this as Megan’s law did not exist at the time of sentencing. I served my sentence and then the state police sentenced me too lifetime registration, I have spent 12 1/2 on the registry that I was not sentenced to.
If you committed no crime and proved entrapment they must have put you in jail on other charges? But I can only speculate as I’m not licensed outside the state of Pennsylvania.
There probably is nothing that we can do to help you. You would have had a claim based on T.S. v. PSP, 231 A.3d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (sex offender registration unconstitutional as applied to an individual whose offenses predated any registration scheme, in violation of ex post facto clause). However, the Supreme Court reversed T.S. v. PSP based on its holding in LaCombe that Subchapter I registration requirements are not punitive. Because the Subchapter I requirements are not punitive, it doesn’t matter that a judge did not impose the requirements as part of a sentence.
Steve, What is your legal opinion in regards to the above questions in light of the August 22, 2022, decision Comm. of PA v. Torsilieri, out of the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County in case 15-CR-0001570-2016? ALD
Torsilieri just lets the Genie out of the bottle again, as even in Chester County the precedent will only last until the inevitable appeal (and possibly much longer if he wins). But other counties are not bound to follow it and may not. It certainly will provide a lot of excitement and litigation in Court in the near term as lawyers and Judges sort through its application. Check out the article we wrote on that case back in August.
Steve,
I was convicted of Sexual Assault in 2001 and part of my sentencing I would not have to register. Then just before I was realeased I was told I had to register for 10 yrs then 8 yrs or so into that it went to 25 yrs and then to lifetime quarterly and finally back to lifetime annually. My question for you is, with no prior convictions and none since, how can they continue to change my registration requirements? Should I not be held to what I was sentenced to? Even though I’ve been fortunate enough to not have being on the list affect my life and lively hood too much it has cost me some deserving positions in my career. Please let me know if there is way that I could get removed or knocked back down and out of this lifetime situation.
It’s not as clear as you would think. You would need to have some solid proof that your plea negotiations included a term that you would not need to register. Believe it or not, even people who were not subject to SORNA registration because it didn’t yet exist still have to register under the new law. But you really should hire a lawyer to look at all of the circumstances of your case in order to be able to properly advise you about what you should do.
I have been on the registry for 24 years (2001)and am nearing the 25-year (2026) compliance requirement to petition for removal under 42 Pa C.S. § 9799.59. Do you handle these type of petitions, if so have you been successful in removing any lifetime registrants from the PA registry?
Yes – Please give us a call if you want to discuss this further. We do charge a fee to review and evaluate registry scenarios.
Or contact me privately:
steve@fairlielaw.com
(215) 997–1000