J

- A02033

- 19

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HOWARD JONES

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 865 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 26, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 40

- CR

- 0003238

- 2002

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: JANUARY 3, 2019 Appellant Howard Jones appeals from the order denying his motion to

enforce a plea agreement and preclude the application of an increased sexual offender registration period under the former version of the Sexual Offenders
Registrati on and Notification and Act 1 (SORNA). Appellant claims that (1) the trial court erred in concluding that a ten

- year registration period under Megan’s Law II 2 was not a material term of the plea agreement and (2) the application of SORNA’s lifetime registr ation period would violate ex post facto
principles. We reverse. 3

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10

- 9799.41 (subsequently amended Feb. 21, 2018)

.

2 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.1(a)(1) (expired).

3 While this appeal was pending, Appellant received a letter from the Pennsylvania State Police indicating that he was no longer required to registerJ

- A0203 3

- 19

- 2

-

The relevant facts and procedures giving rise to this appeal are well
known to the parties and need not be restated here

. We briefly note that on
March 23, 2017, Appellant filed a moti on to enforce his 2003 pl ea agreement

. O n April 25, 2018 , t he trial court denied Appellant’s motion

. Appellant timely appealed and complied with the trial court’s order to

submit a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court filed a responsive opinion finding that Appellant failed to establish that a ten

- year registration requirement was a material term of his plea. The court further concluded that
Appellant waived a challenge to SORNA based on ex post facto princ iples. Seven days after the trial court authored its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Muniz , 164 A.3d
1189 (Pa. 2017). The Muniz Court concluded that the registration requirements of SORNA were punitive in nat ure and that the retroactive application of SORN A to increase a sexual offender’ s term of registration

violated ex post facto principles under the United States and Pennsylvania

Constitutions. 4 Muniz , 164 A.3d at 1218 , 1223

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ as a sexual offender. Appellant filed an unopposed application to disc ontinue this appeal. In light of our disposition, however, we deny Appellant’s application as moot.

4 The General Assembly subsequently amended SORNA. See 2018, Feb. 21, P.L. 27, No. 10 (Act 10). The amended version of SORNA clarifies that the registr ation requirements under Subchapter H apply to a defendant who committed an offense on or after its initial effective date of December 20, 2012. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.11(c). Under Subchapter I, indecent assault

– person less than thirteen years of age, whe n committed “on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 2012” requires the defendant to register for ten years. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55(a).J

- A0203 3

- 19

- 3

-

Appellant presents the fo llowing questions for our review:
[1]. Whether the Trial Court Erred By Committing An Error Of Law Or An Abuse Of Discretion In Denying the Appellant’s Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement and Retroactively Subjecting the Appellant to the Requirements of the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA), Depriving the Appellant the “benefits of the bargain” Provided in the Negotiated Plea Previously Entered into by the Appellant and the Commonwealth? [2]. Whether The Trial Court Erred by Violating the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U nited States and Pennsylvania Constitutions by Retroactively Applying the Requirements of the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA)?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Following our review, and in light of Muniz , we conclude that SORNA’s lifetime registration requirement does not a pply to Appellant

. See

Commonwealth v. Fernandez , 195 A.3d 299, 310 ( Pa. Super. 2018) ( en
banc ). Because there are no further disputes regarding the Appellant’s registration requirements, we reverse the trial court’s order to the extent it found that Appellant was subject to SORNA.

Order reversed. Application to discontinue appeal denied.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 1/03/2019