J

- S24040

- 24 2024 PA Super 233

C OMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.
ROBERT KARL BARGER, JR.

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1024 WDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Dated August 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP

- 65

- CR

- 0004955

- 2005

BEFORE: BOWES, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTO BER 2, 2024 Appellant Robert Karl Barger appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County denying in part Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. After careful review, we affirm. In January 2006, Appellant pled guilty at docket CP

- 65

- CR

- 0004955

- 2005 to indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age, indecent exposure, and unlawful contact with a minor in connection with offenses he committed in 2005

. On September 25, 2006, the trial court imposed a

sen tence of one year less one day to two years less one day of incarceration

. As the trial court deemed Appellant to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) , Appellant was required to comply with lifetime registration under Megan’s Law
III (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9795.1(b)(3)), the sexual offender registration statute in effect at that time. On August 14, 2007, this Court affirmed the judgment of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S24040

- 24

- 2

-

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Barger , 204 2 WDA 2006 (Pa.Super. August 14, 2007) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. In a related case, in October 2011, Appellant was charged at docket CP

65

- CR

- 000 3703

- 2011 with Failure to Comply with Registration of Sexual Offenders Requirements of Megan’s Law III (formerly 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915(a)(1)) and Failure to Provide Accurate Information (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915(a)). On June 19, 2012, Appellant was convicted of these offenses and on September 1, 2012, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate sentence of five to ten years’ incarceration. On December 4, 2013, this Court affi rmed the judgment of sentence at the 3703

- 2011 docket and on May 7, 2014, the Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Barger , 919 WDA 2013 (Pa.Super. December 4, 2013) (unpublished memo) , appeal denied , 91 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2014). On October 8, 2018, Appellant filed identical pro se PCRA motions at both dockets , challenging his registration requirements imposed for his 2006 convictions for assault , his SVP designation, and his 2012 conviction s for failure to comply with such registration requirements on the basis that Megan’s Law III , the statute under which he had been convicted, had been found to be unconstitutional and void ab initio in Commonwealth v. Neima n , 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603 (2013)

.J

- S24040

- 24

- 3

-

The PCRA court appointed Appellant counsel, who subsequently filed a petition to withdraw and a Turner - Finley no - merit letter. 1 On June 3, 2019, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petitions without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On July 16, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed the petitions as untimely filed. On May 11, 2020, this Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order and on October 27, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Appellant’s allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Barger , 1031 WDA 2019, 1158 WDA 2019 (Pa.Super. May 11, 2020) (unpublished memo) , appeal denied , 240 A.3d 879 ( Pa. 2020 ). On February 26, 2021, Appellant filed identical pro se “Amended Writs for Habeas Corpus” in both dockets , again claiming that the Supreme Court’s decision in Neiman , which invalidated Megan’s Law III , removed statutory authority for his registration requirements , his SVP designation, and his 2012
convictions. The trial court denied the habeas petitions, finding that Appellant could not seek habeas relief to obtain the relief previously denied in his untimely PCRA petitions. After Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal, the trial court concede d that it had erred in refusing to consider the merits of Appellant’s habeas petition and requested a remand pursuant to Commonwealth v. Lacombe , 660 Pa. 568, 234 A.3d 602 (2020) in which our Supreme Court “decline[d] to find that the PCRA, or any other procedural mechanism, is the exclusive method for

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 See Commonwealth v. Turner , 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988 ) ( en banc ).J

- S24040

- 24

- 4

-

challenging sexual offender registration statutes. ” Id . at 595, 234 A.3d at 618 (noting that sexual registration statutes may be challenged through a habeas petition or other procedural mechanisms as defendant s would be unable to raise such challenges under the PCRA based on untimeliness grounds or because their sentence has expired). On February 18, 2022, this Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for the trial court to review the merits of Appellant’s habeas petitions . This Court also dire cted the lower court to appoint Appellant counsel prior to the merits hearing. See Commonwealth v. Barger , 503

- 504 WDA 2021 (Pa.Super. February 18, 2022) ( unpublished memorandum). Upon remand, the trial court appointed Timothy P. Dawson , Esq. to serve as Appellant’s counsel and scheduled a hearing on the habeas petitions. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order on August 7, 2023, grant ing Appellant’s habeas petition in part and vacat ing his 2012 conviction for violating his registration requirements under Megan’s Law III , which was invalidated in Neiman . The trial court noted that “an offense created by an unconstitutional law is not a crime and a conviction under it is illegal and void and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 8/7/23, at 18

- 19 (quoting Commonwealth v. Derhammer , 643 Pa. 391, 399, 173 A.3d 723 , 728 ( 2017) )

. The lower court also cited Commonwealth
v. McInt

yre , 659 Pa. 428, 445, 232 A.3d 609 , 619 (2020) , in which our Supreme Court vacated the defendant’s conviction under Section 4915 , which

was deemed to be void from the time of its enactment pursuant to Neiman

.J

- S24040

- 24

- 5

-

Nevertheless, the trial court denied Appellant’s habeas petition in part
as it rejected Appellant’s suggestion that the invalidation of Megan’s Law III relieved him of his lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender with SVP
status since subsequent legislation addressed the deficiencies raised by the Neiman Court’s invalidation of Megan’s Law III. On September 1, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the August 7, 2023 order denying Appellant’s habeas petition in part

. On September 14, 2023, Attorney Dawson filed a motion to withdraw. On September 15, 2023, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw without elaboration, appointment of substitute counsel, or indication that a colloquy

was con ducted pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1988). See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 120(A)(4) (“ An attorney who has been retained or appointed by the court shall continue such representation through direct appeal or until granted leave to withdraw by the court pu rsuant to paragraph (B)”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 120(B)(3) (“ Upon granting leave to withdraw, the court shall determine whether new counsel is entering an appearance, new counsel is being appointed to represent the defendant, or the defendant is proceeding without counsel”). Thus, on March 1, 2024, this Court remanded the case back for the trial court to inform the Court if the trial court had conducted a Grazier colloquy or to conduct such colloquy if one had not already occurred

. On May 3, 2024, the trial court notified this Court that on April 26, 2024 , it conducted a Grazier colloquy in which Appellant indicated that he wished to proceed pro se andJ

- S24040

- 24

- 6

-

declined the appointment of both counsel and standby counsel. As both Appellant and the Commonwealth submitted briefs on appeal, we may now review the merits of the appeal. Appellant raises one issue for our review on appeal: Whether the collateral proceedings court abused its discretion or otherwise erred illegally, where said court failed to mention or otherwise discuss its holding of [Appellant’s] claim concerning his Sexually Violent Predator Status in accord with the controlling precedence [sic] of our Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Neiman , 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) and our controlling Superior Court case of Commonwealth v. Hooks , 1738 MDA 2017 (Pa.Super. July 24, 2018) by way of stare decisis? Appellant’s Brief, at 4. It is necessary to review the timeline of relevant statutory and case law concerning Pennsylvania’s laws imposing registration, notification, and counseling (“RNC”) requirements on sex offenders

. When Appellant was convicted of sexual offenses in 2006 and designated as an SVP, he was required to submit to lifetime registration under Megan’s Law III , which was the sexual offender registration statute in effect at that time. On December 20, 2011, the General Assembly enacted the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) , 4 2 Pa.C.S. A. §§ 9791

- 9799.9 , in order to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Public Law 109

- 248 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901

- 16991, “ which mandate s that states impose on sex offenders certain tier

- based registration and notification requirements in order to a void being subject to a penalty, i.e. the loss of federal grant funding

. ” Commonwealth v. Muniz , 640 Pa. 699,J

- S24040

- 24

- 7

-

724, 164 A.3d 1189 , 120 3

- 1204 (2017) (citing In re J.B. , 630 Pa. 408, 412, 107 A.3d 1 , 3 (2014)) . As a result, SORNA provided for the expiration of Megan’s Law III, as of December 20, 2012, the effective date of SORNA. Muni z , 640 Pa. at 724, 164 A.3d at 1 204 ( citing In re J.B. , 630 Pa. at 412, 107 A.3d at 3)

. After SORNA had become effective, in 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in Neiman , striking down Act 2004

- 152, the legislation through which Megan’s Law III was enacted , as violative of the single subject rule

. Neiman , 624 Pa. at 57

- 58 , 84 A.3d at 605 ; Pa. Const. art. III, § 3 (“No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof”). Acknowledging th e potential impact of its decision in invalidating a statute that contained provisions establishing registration requirements for sexual offenders , the Neiman Court stayed its decision for ninety (90) days to afford the General Assembly time to reenact portions of Act 2004

- 152 “in a manner consistent with the Constitution

. ” Neiman , 624 Pa. at 75, 84 A.3d 616

. While t he Neiman decision declar ed Act 152 unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court cautioned that : this action should, in no way, be read as a repudiation of the merits of the various legislative components of Act 152 such as Megan’s Law III, “which serves a vital purpose in protecting our Commonwealth’s citizens and children, in particular, from victimization by sexual predators

. ... [S] ince we find merit in the General Assembly’s suggestion that our decision abrogating theJ

- S24040

- 24

- 8

-

entirety of Act 152 will have a significant impact on a whole variety of individuals and entities which have ordered their affairs in reliance on its provisions, we will stay our decision, as we have done under similar circumstances, in order to provide a reasonable amount of time for the General Assembly to consider appropriate measures , or to allow for a smooth transition period. Neiman , 624 Pa. at 74

- 75 , 84 A.3d 61 5

- 61 6

. Thereafter, i n March 2014, before the stay expired, the General Assembly responded to the Neiman decision by enacting Act 19 of 2014, see Act of Mar. 14, 2014, No. 19, P.L. 41 (Act “2014

- 19”) “ which modified the wording of § 9799.1 3(3) to clarify that persons who were required to register with the state police at any time before SORNA’s effective date, and who se registration period had not expired, were still obligated to register with the state police as provided in § 9799.15. ” Derhammer , 643 Pa. at 396, 173 A.3d at 726

. Several years later, on June 19, 2017 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found in Muniz that SORNA I’s registration requirements were punitive in nature and the retroactive application of such registration provisions violated the ex post facto clauses of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Muniz , 640 Pa. at 7 06 , 164 A.3d at 1193. Thereafter, i n Commonwealth v. Butler , 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa.Super. 2017) ( Butler I ), a panel of this Court held it was constrained by Muniz to find SORNA’s framework for designating convicted offenders as SVP s constituted criminal punishment and violated Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013)

. Butler I , 173 A.3d at 121 8.J

- S24040

- 24

- 9

-

In response to Muniz and Butler I , the Legislature amended SORNA I and enacted SORNA “Act 10” of 2019, Act of Feb. 21, 2018, P.L. 27 (“Act 10”) , creating a new statutory scheme referred to as SORNA II. Act 10 split SORNA, which was previously designated in the Sentencing Code as Subchapter H into two subchapters. Revised Subchapter H applies to crimes committed on or after December 20, 2012, whereas Subchapter I applies to crimes committed after April 22 , 1996, but before December 20, 2012. In essence, Revised Subchapter H retained many of the provisions of SORNA while Subchapter I imposed arguably less onerous requirements on those who committed offenses prior to December 20, 2012, in an attempt to addre ss this Court's conclusion in Muniz that application of the original provisions of SORNA to these offenders constituted an ex post facto violation. Commonwealth v. Torsilieri , 659 Pa. 359, 381, A.3d 567, 580

– 81 (2020)

. Importantly, Subchapter I, which applies to certain petitioners who committed their offense before the effective date of SORNA, imposes lifetime registration for SVPs. Subchapter I defines a “sexually violent predator” as

... a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and who is determined to be a sexually violent predator under section 9799.58 (relating to assessments) due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses or who has ever been determined by a court to have a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses under a former sexual offender registrati on law of this Commonwealth. 42 Pa .C.S.A . § 9799.53 (emphasis added)

. After SORNA II was in effect, on March 26, 2020, the Supreme Court issued Commonwealth v. Butler , 657 Pa. 579, 226 A.3d 972 (2020) ( Butler
II ), revers ing this Court’s decision in Butler I . The Supreme CourtJ

- S24040

- 24

- 10

-

determined that the Subchapter H registration requirements applica b le to SV Ps did not constitute criminal punishment and thus were not subject to the requirements of Apprendi and Alleyne

. Id

. at 585, 226 A. 3 d at 976. Thereafter, on July 21, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Lacombe that the RNC requirements of Subchapter I of SORNA II do not constitute criminal punishment, and therefore, are not violative of the ex post facto rule. Lacombe , 660 Pa. at 609 , 234 A.3d at 626

- 27. Turning back to the instant case, Appellant argues that he cannot be required to register under Subchapter I of SORNA II since h is duty to register as a SVP arose under Megan’s Law III, which has since been determined to be void. Appellant , who committed his qualifying offenses before December 20, 2012, argues that Subchapter I of SORNA cannot be retroactively applied to him as such a designation would be violative of ex post fac to prohib i tions. However, Appellant does not suggest that the RNC requirements impos ed upon him t hrough Subchapter I are in any way punitive. 2 As noted above, in Butler II , our Supreme Court rejected a similar challenge to Subchapter H of SORNA, as it found that the RNC requirements imposed on SVPs therein do not constitute criminal punishment. The Court distinguished SVPs from non

- SVP registrants “due to heightened public safety concerns based on the determination that SVPs have a ‘mental abnormality or

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 See Muniz , 640 Pa. at 732 , 164 A.3d at 1208 (“Our decision regarding violation of [the ex post facto ] clause depends on a determination of whether SORNA’s retroactive application ... constitutes punishment”).J

- S24040

- 24

- 11

-

a personality disorder that makes the individual more likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. ’ ” Butler II , 660 Pa. at 604 , 226 A.3d at 987 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 97 99.12) . T he Supreme Court clarified that: [a] lthough we recognize the RNC requirements impose affirmative disabilities or restraints upon SVPs, and those requirements have been historically regarded as punishment, our conclusions in this regard are not dispositive on the larger question of whether the statu tory requirements constitute criminal punishment. This is especially so where the government in this case is concerned with protecting the public, through counseling and public notification rather than deterrent threats, not from those who have been convic ted of certain enumerated crimes, but instead from those who have been found to be dangerously mentally ill. Under the circumstances, and also because we do not find the RNC requirements to be excessive in light of the heightened public safety concerns att endant to SVPs, we conclude the RNC requirements do not constitute criminal punishment. Id

. at 6 1 4, 226 A.3d at 992

- 93. We also reiterate that in Lacombe , the Supreme Court specifically found that Subchapter I of SORNA II “is

no n punitive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.” Lacombe , 660 Pa. at 575 , 234 A.3d at 605

- 606

. Given the same logic set forth in Butler II and Lacombe , this Court has rejected ex post facto challenge s brought by a petitioners deemed to be SVP s under Megan’s Law III, who claimed they should not be subject to retroactive application of Subchapter I of SORNA II. In Commonwealth v. Zack , 262 A.3d 497 (Pa.Super. 2021) , this Court held that the appellant, who was originally deemed an SVP under Megan’s Law III, “must now register under Subchapter I of SORNA II, which has less stringent reporting requirements than the constitutionally permissible requirements ofJ

- S24040

- 24

- 12

-

Subchapter H.” Id . at 505 (citing C ommonwealth v. Elliott , 249 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super

. 2021) ) (rejec ting the appellant’s argument that his RNC requirements as an SVP under Subchapter I of SORNA II are punitive and violative of the ex post facto clause)

. 3 As a result, Appellant’s claim that he cannot be required to submit to RNC requirements set forth in Subchapter I of SORNA II is clearly meritless

. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determin ed that Appellant is not entitled
to habeas relief. However, upon remand of the record, we direct the lower court to notify Appellant of his registration requirements under Subchapter I. Order affirmed. Case r emand ed with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Hooks , 1738 MDA 2017 (Pa.Super. July 24, 2018) (unpublished memorandum)

. Our internal operating procedures provide that while “ non - precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value,

... [a]n unpublished memorandum decision filed prior to May 2, 2019, shall not be relied upon or cited by a Court or a party in any other action or proceeding

. ” 210 Pa.Code § 65.37(B). This rule is subject to exceptions which are not applicable in this case. Further, the memorandum decision in Hooks provides no support for Appellant’s argument as its holding was based its citation to Butler I , which has since been overruled.J

- S24040

- 24

- 13

-

DATE: 10/2/2024