J-S44039-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHARLES EDWARD BROOKS

Appellant No. 365 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 17, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000386-2014

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2015

Charles Edward Brooks appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County. After our review, 

we affirm. 

A jury convicted Brooks of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse 

(IDSI), IDSI-forcible compulsion, IDSI with a person less than thirteen years 

of age, aggravated indecent assault-forcible compulsion, aggravated 

indecent assault with a person less than thirteen years of age, endangering 

the welfare of children, corruption of minors, and indecent assault-forcible 

compulsion. The victims, a male and a female, both testified. The female 

victim testified that the sexual assaults occurred when she was between the 

ages of five and ten. 
J-S44039-15

- 2 -

President Judge John F. Wagner sentenced Brooks on February 17, 

2015, to a total term of imprisonment of six to twelve years. Brooks was 

classified as a “Tier 3” offender under the Commonwealth’s Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”),1and ordered to undergo 

lifetime registration with the Pennsylvania State Police as a sexual offender. 

Brooks filed post-sentence motions, which were denied. He filed a notice of 

appeal on March 2, 2015. The court ordered Brooks to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, and Brooks filed his 

timely Rule 1925(b) statement on March 4, 2015. 

Brooks raises the following issues for our review: 

1. Did the Commonwealth fail to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt appellant had any inappropriate contact with the 

female victim in the present case?

____________________________________________

1 On December 20, 2011, the legislature replaced Megan’s Law with SORNA, 

effective December 20, 2012, to strengthen registration requirements for 

sex offenders and to bring Pennsylvania into compliance with the Adam 

Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 16901, et seq. 

Commonwealth v. Sampolski, 89 A.3d 1287, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

Section 9799.14 of SORNA establishes a three-tiered system of specifically 

enumerated offenses requiring registration for sexual offenders for differing 

lengths of time. Id. Pursuant to section 9799.15(a)(1), a person convicted 

of a Tier I offense must register for 15 years. A Tier II offender must 

register for 25 years, while a Tier III offender, like Brooks, must register for 

the remainder of his or her life. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.15(a)(2), (a)(3). See 

Commonwealth v. McDonough, 96 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2014); see 

also Commonwealth v. Gaffney, 733 A.2d 616, 622 (Pa. 1999) (“Because 

we do not view the registration requirements as punitive but, rather, 

remedial, we do not perceive mandating compliance by offenders who have 

served their maximum term to be improper.”).
J-S44039-15

- 3 -

2. Did the Commonwealth fail to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that appellant engaged in any activity tending to 

corrupt the minor male victim by showing him 

inappropriate magazines or photos?

3. Did the Commonwealth fail to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the appellant had any unlawful contact with the 

minor female victim since there was no physical evidence 

presented in the instant case?

4. Is it unconstitutional to require an appellant to register for 

a lifetime when said registration requirement exceeds the 

statutory maximum penalty for appellant’s offense?

5. Is the Adam Walsh statute unconstitutional in requiring an 

appellant to register for a lifetime?2 

After a review of the parties’ briefs, the relevant case law and the 

certified record on appeal, we agree with President Judge Wagner that these 

claims are meritless, and we rely upon his opinion in affirming the judgment 

of sentence. We attach a copy of that decision in the event of further 

proceedings in the matter. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Stabile joins the Memorandum.

Judge Jenkins concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

2 We point out that Brooks summarily argues that “that to require such a 

registration period constitutes an unusual punishment as barred by the 

Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions[.]” Appellant's Brief at 19. Brooks fails 

to acknowledge, however, that the registration requirement is non-punitive, 

see McDonough, supra at n.1; therefore, it does not fall within the 

protection of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article I, 

Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Trial Court Opinion, at 3-

4; see also Commonwealth v. Perez, 97 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(provisions of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) not 

punitive in nature).
J-S44039-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/22/2015
-~·· . 

.,. 

·'/ 

compulsion contact. The trial evidence may be summarized as follows: 

years of age; Corruption of Minors, magazines, two victims; Indecent Assault forcible 

. Welfare of Children; Corruption of Minors; Indecent Assault with a person less than thirteen 

.Aggravated Indecent Assault with a person less than thirteen years of age; Endangering the 

with a person less than thirteen years of age; Aggravated Indecent Assault forcible compulsion; 

Deviate Sexual Intercourse, IDSI forcible compulsion; Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse i 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

I ·! 

l 

The Defendant has been convicted by a jury of the following nine offenses: Involuntary 

he; and (5) Unconstitutionality of the Adam Walsh statute which requires lifetime registration. 

victim; (4) Unconstitutionality of the requirement for lifetime registration for a defendant such a~ . 

magazines or photos; (3) Insufficient evidence that Defendant had any unlawful contact with the 

contact with the victim; (2) Insufficient. evidence that he showed the victim inappropriate 

grounds on which he is seeking relief: ( 1) Insufficient evidence that he had any inappropriate 

Before the Court is Defendant's Concise Statement oflssues on Appeal listing five 

WAGNER, P.J. 

OPINION AND ORDER. 

Defendant 

CHARLES BROOKS No. 386 of2014 

--·· • __ .:-: - .- -· -c .' 

vs. 

- • .•. - ·"""':I.T"·--·- .- ... ·•· ;::._.'.·.' .•·-• • 

COMMONVlEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

,, 

r" 

I 

Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM
. - - ~ -·-·-----====-----~------- 

. . 

2 

• 

during his investigation of this matter, he had ascertained that Defendant's date of birth is August 

I 'IS"(, 

19, .. ; C_... Cg J''s birthdate is January 31, .... and Connor ~·s date of birth 

is July 20, 2006, Id. p. l 5, and had also determined that the crimes occurred at l 30 Palmer Adah 

mother about the pictures. Id. p. 40. Pennsylvania State Trooper Thomas Hartley testified that 

Defendant would go to.a different part away from where she was. Id. c .... first told his 

Defendant would show him magazines with pictures of naked women sometimes when he went 

the jury that he knows Defendant as "Uncle Chuckie." Id. pp. 31, 37: 0...- stated that 

· Ms. C-1 •1 •rta''s halfbrother, O• r B-, age eight years and in the third grade, told 

her stepmother asked about it. Id. p. 21. 

removed the child's clothing. Id. Some years later, when she was sixteen years old, she finally 

told her stepmother's niece about the sexual abuse, Id. p. 13, and later told her stepmother after 

pelvic area. Id. p. 15. Eventually, Defendant once forced her head down on his penis after he had 

her clothes were on. Id. Such activity brought Defendant's penis into contact with the victim's 

vagina with his fingers. Id. pp. l 0-11_. The touching later progressed to "dry humping"· her while .. 

. . . . .· . . . . . . . . . . : ..... ·.. . . . ·- ... ··,-·· ·····- -- ' . . -. . -- --·-------.-----~- .. ·-~----- 

Sometimes Defendant would then remove her clothing and touch the young girl's chest and · 

pornographic magazines with naked men and women engaging in sexual intercourse. Id. p.9. 

her stepgrandrnother's house, Defendant would take her up to his bedroom and showed her .. 

~- between the ages of five and ten years old, her stepgrandmother, V'd tr 8-1111, was her 

caretaker while her mother, father, or stepfather were working. Id. p. 8. While the child was at 

. ,,!.... •. 

stepgrandmother's son, and he resided with his mother. N.T. pp. 6-7. When Ms. Ca E was 

The first witness, c·•• C,1s••·r.;, eighteen years old at the time of the trial, testified 

·'s grandmother was in the house he and ' . 

to his grandmother's house. Id. p. 38. Although Ca 

Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM
.... 

.) 

purview of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 

defendant for reasons other than punishment, it is considered as non-penal and not within the 

Common Pleas. However, it is well-settled that when a statute imposes a consequence on a 

enacted legislative statute is not constitutional is generally beyond the authority of the Court of 

The constitutionality of any statute is purely a question of law, and a declaration that a properly 

not constitute an illegal sentence, but is rather a collateral consequence of his convictions. See Id. 

McDonough, 96 A.3d 1067 (Pa.Super. 2014). The registration period of twenty-five years does 

are non-punitive and are intended to advance and protect public safety. See Commonwealth v. 

registration, the Sexual Offender Registration and Nortification Act (SORNA), such provisions 

offender registration requirements and the "Adam Walsh" statute which mandates the said 

As to Defendant's two claims concerning the unconstitutionality of the length of the sex 

refute Defendant's first three claims of insufficiency for purposes of this appeal. 

999 (Pa.Super. 2003). Clearly, the trial testimony as summarized above is quite sufficient to 

benefit of all reasonable inferences based on that evidence. Commonwealth v. Walker, 839 A.2d 

----· · · ·--- -- - · · In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiencyof the.evidence, the Cami must consider the 

... .Defendant had shown himpictures of naked women. Id. pp.-62-63;_::.:._. -~:. , . 

.,=.::;.=....__:...-,. ~--=·s41er-that-Defendant had--shewn-her-pornegmphie-pictures;-digitally penetrated her vagina, and 

1 

· · Pattersons'·s testimony generally confirmed that of both victims in that Ms. Ci• ? 11'.related to 

+ •• ., .. concerning her interviews with both .Cl S r Ciilfii•1:11li and Gllllla.BH-- 

Road, Luzerne Township, Fayette County. Id. Commonwealth witness, Desiree Patterson, a 

:j,:~_", :t":~=:-.c:~t~rerisfoifrteivfe.we{af A~c1tlfd'§~Tace:it~rvieidf;:fs~fs~i~cusis-t~l~t}Itt~-b~·g1{i~~firi.;l"~·:·-"--~=-· ~-.---,7···.:, 

Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM
4 

• ... · 

:-'I. 

' . 

(·~ Ii 

·-. _,. • ,!t •• A ,._ ,. / ,..- ... -:s . . . 

'<, . '

~-

. /. ·,. /i • ·' ._( ' »: • I. . <I(!,;· /» . .,,, , .. 

, : /V .... '•. ~ .... L I I /t. .•\. ~ ...... (_Ji Clerk of Courts .. r ·r· I . ·' 

t. .. / v 

ATIEST: 

... -·: __ ·.:.:..·_: 

denied. _ . 

. ~----·--·--.··· . 

_________ .. ... ·- .. .F.ortl1.e.f9,r~going_reasons,jt isxe~p~ctfμlly .. ~.l,lggt::steiUhat.D...efendant's appeal should be -=-~~------ ---· --- . .. . - . . 

~the. prohjbitions against cruel and unusual punishment in either. 

Amendment or under Article 1, Section 13 of the Pennsyh~ai:ia <;on~!ituti()n_, and does not violate 

, 

·- ··--·- -• ,. .. ···-··--~ ~-- 

s:>: : --. , ::-····: ::-.~pm;iat.iv;~ effectuation ofpublic.safet-)i::.:Tlm~_tit:,is !1?1:'pt1_n_is~une_n;:fo._~!he puiposes of the Eighth. · : 

- . ····-· - . . . ······- . ·--~~-- -- --~- . ·-·-· -·· .... 

U.S. 86 (1958). As already stated, McDonough, supra., held that SORNA's goal is the nonI . 

I 

Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM