You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


J-S09022-18


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    STEVEN ANDREW WILLIAMS                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1414 MDA 2017

             Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 26, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                           CP-67-CR-0005898-2016

BEFORE:      GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                             FILED JUNE 20, 2018

        Steven Andrew Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

on his conviction for failure to comply with the registration requirements1 of

the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). Williams argues

that, because his underlying crime pre-dated SORNA, he was not, pursuant to

Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct.

295 (2018), properly subject to SORNA’s registration requirements.2 He

maintains that his conviction for failing to register therefore cannot stand. We

are constrained to agree.

        Williams was originally convicted in New York state, in 1990, of rape by

forcible compulsion for a rape he committed in 1988. A New York court

____________________________________________


*    Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1.
2   See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.13(7.1).
J-S09022-18



sentenced Williams to three to nine years’ imprisonment, and he was required

under New York law to register as a sex offender for life. In 2015, Williams

moved to Pennsylvania and became subject to Pennsylvania law, including

SORNA’s registration requirements. Those requirements include registering in

person with the State Police on a quarterly basis. Williams admits that he

failed to register in July 2016. He maintains that he thought he was not

required to do so because in May 2016 he reported to submit a change of

address. See Williams’ Brief at 25-26.

     A jury found Williams guilty, and the trial court subsequently sentenced

him to seven to 14 years’ imprisonment. Williams filed post-sentence motions

on May 5, 2017, and while they were pending, the Supreme Court handed

down its decision in Muniz. There, the Court held that SORNA’s stringent

registration and reporting requirements constitute criminal punishment for

purposes of the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and

therefore do not apply to offenders whose crimes occurred before SORNA’s

effective date. Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1223. Williams did not amend his post-trial

motions to assert a claim based on Muniz. The trial court denied his motions,

and Williams filed this timely appeal as well as a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement.

     Williams’ raises two issues for our review:

     I.    Whether [] Williams’ failure to register in this case was not
           a crime because neither SORNA nor any other sex offender
           registration scheme can legally apply to him in light of
           Muniz, such that his judgment of sentence is illegal and
           must be vacated[?]

                                    -2-
J-S09022-18


      II.   Whether the trial court erred in denying Williams’ challenge
            to the weight of the evidence because Williams’ failure to
            register was not a knowing one where he updated his
            address within three months of his quarterly registration
            date, he had previously received reminders to register but
            received none in this instance, and he registered
            immediately once informed that he was out of compliance[?]

Williams’ Brief at 5.

      The Commonwealth argues that Williams waived his first issue,

regarding the application of our Supreme Court’s decision in Muniz, by failing

to raise it below. Williams acknowledges that he did not raise the issue until

he filed his Rule 1925(b) statement but argues waiver is not appropriate here.

He contends that his issue constitutes a challenge to the legality of his

sentence, and points out that our Supreme Court announced its decision in

Muniz after he filed post-sentence motions.

      We decline to find waiver. The statute under which Williams was

convicted requires the Commonwealth to prove, among other things, that

Williams was “subject to registration under [SORNA]. . . .” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

4915.1(a). The duty to register is therefore an element of the offense, and

Williams’ argument amounts to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Such a claim may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P.

606(a)(7). See also Commonwealth v. Rivera-Figueroa, 174 A.3d 674,

679 (Pa.Super. 2017) (allowing Post Conviction Relief Act petitioner to raise

Muniz claim to pre-SORNA conviction). We therefore will review Williams’s

first issue on the merits.



                                    -3-
J-S09022-18


       On the merits, we conclude that we must vacate the judgment of

sentence and conviction. As noted, under Muniz, the retroactive application

of SORNA’s registration scheme to sexual offenders who committed their

crimes before the SORNA’s effective date violates Pennsylvania’s ex post facto

clause.3 In this case, Williams’ underlying conviction stems from a rape he

committed in 1988 in New York. When he moved to Pennsylvania, he became

subject to SORNA’s registration scheme, which, as determined by Muniz,

constitutes ex post facto punishment for a crime. Thus, pursuant to Muniz,

the retroactive application of SORNA’s registration requirements to Williams

does not pass constitutional muster, and he had no duty to register at the

relevant time.

       For like reasons, the fact that he moved to Pennsylvania after the

effective date of SORNA does not require a different outcome. That is, when

Williams moved to Pennsylvania, he became subject to SORNA, which

(according to Muniz) unconstitutionally imposed new punishment on a pre-

SORNA conviction.

       The Commonwealth argues that Muniz does not apply here because

New York law required Williams to register for life in that state. Thus, the

Commonwealth posits, Williams’ lifetime registration requirement, under

SORNA, does not implicate Pennsylvania’s ex post facto clause because there


____________________________________________


3 See Commonwealth v. McCullough, 174 A.3d 1094, 1095 (Pa.Super.
2017) (en banc).

                                           -4-
J-S09022-18


was no effective increase in his registration period. The Commonwealth’s

argument is unavailing, however, because Muniz held that SORNA’s stringent

registration requirements, not just the mere length of the registration period,

rendered SORNA’s registration scheme criminal punishment for purposes of

Pennsylvania’s ex post facto clause. See Muniz, 164 A.3d 1210-11. The

length of Williams’ previous registration requirement in another jurisdiction is

of no moment. We therefore vacate Williams’ judgment of sentence and

conviction.

      We do not address Williams’ weight-of-the-evidence issue because his

first issue is dispositive.

      Judgment of sentence and conviction vacated.

President Judge Gantman joins the Memorandum.

Judge Platt files a concurring statement.



Judgment Entered.




Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 06/20/2018




                                     -5-