J

- A19034

- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JUAN ANTHONY SERRANO , Appellant No. 3785 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 16, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division

at No(s):CP

- 45

- CR

- 0001047

- 2015 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. , OTT , and FITZGERALD, * JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 Appellant, Juan Anthony Serrano, appeals from judgment of sentence of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas ordering him to serve an aggregate twenty
- six to eighty

- four months’ imprisonment and classifying him as a Tier III sexu al offender based on his guilty plea to two counts of possession of child pornography. 1 Appellant claims that (1) the sexual abuse of children enhancement of the Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutional, (2) the trial court’s sentence is manifestly unrea sonable, and (3) he should have been classified as a Tier I offender. 2 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for the entry of an order classifying Appellant as a Tier I offender.

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).

2 We have reordered the arguments set forth in Appellant’s Brief.J

- A19034

- 16

- 2

-

The Honorable Jonathan Mark thoroughly addressed Appe llant’s issues in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and found that (1) Appellant’s constitutional challenge to the sentencing enhancement was waived, (2) Appellant’s sentencing challenge did not raise a substantial question and in any event, did not warrant re lief, and (3) Appellant’s classification as a Tier III offender was required by this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Merolla , 909 A.2d 337 (Pa. Super. 2006). See Trial Ct. Op., 2/1/16, 5

- 18. We discern no error or abuse of discretion in the trial jud ge’s consideration of Appellant’s first two challenges and affirm based on the court’s opinion. See id. at 8

- 10 (discussing waiver of Appellant’s constitutional challenge), 11

- 18 (discussing Appellant’s discretionary aspect of sentence challenge).
As to Appellant’s third challenge, in which he contests his classification as Tier III sexual offender under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(d)(16), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided Commonwealth v. Lutz Morrison , ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 4273555 (Pa. Aug. 1 5, 2016), and A.S. v. Pa. State Police , ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 4273568 (Pa. Aug. 15, 2016). In light of the clarification provided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it is apparent that Appellant must be classified as a Tier I offender. 3 See Lutz Morriso n , ___ A.3d at ___, 2016 WL 4273555 at *2 (holding a Tier III classification “requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger

3 The Commonwealth agrees that relief is due in light of Lutz - Morrison

.J

- A19034

- 16

- 3

-

lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to a fifteen

- or twenty
- five

- year period of registrat ion”). Thus, we affirm the conviction, but reverse Appellant’s classification as a Tier III offender. Appellant shall be classified as a Tier I offender. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(b)(9). Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and reversed in part. Case remanded for the entry of an order classifying Appellant as a Tier I offender. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2016