### J - S44039 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA 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 Broo ks 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, e ndangering 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 (“SOR NA”), 1 

### and 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 a ny 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 P a.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 phot os? 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’ br iefs, 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 fur ther 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 Pennsylvani a 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- ~ ·· 

# . .,. ·' / 

### co mpu lsi on c on ta c t. T h e tri al e vid e nc e may be su mmari z e d a s follow s : y e ar s of a ge ; Co rrupti o n of Mi n ors, m ag a z i n e s , tw o v i c tims; I n de ce n t Ass ault fo rcib l e . W e l fare of Ch ildr e n ; Co rrup ti on o f Min o r s; In d ec en t As sau l t w i th a p erson l ess than th irt e en . A g gr a vate d Indec e nt As s au lt with a per s on l e ss than thi rteen ye ar s of a ge; E nd angering the w ith a p e r s on l ess th an thi rt ee n ye ars o f ag e ; A g g ra v at e d In d ecent Assau lt fo rcible c omp u l s io n ; De vi at e S e x u al In tercou r s e , I D SI fo r c i bl e co mpul s i o n; Inv o l unt ary D e vi at e S e x u al In te rco ur se 

## i I I 

# I \ 

# I

· ! 

### l The D e fendant h a s be e n convict e d by a j u ry o f th e fo llowi ng ni ne offe n s es : In v o lu n t ary

he ; an d ( 5 ) Uncon s tituti ona lity of th e A d am Wal s h statut e whi c h r e quire s lifeti me r e gistratio n . v icti m; (4 ) Unc o n s ti tution a li ty o f the r eq uir em e n t fo r li fetim e r eg i s trati o n fo r a d e fe ndant s u c h a ~ . ma gaz in es or ph o tos; ( 3) Insu ffi ci e nt ev i d en ce that D efe nd an t h a d an y u n l awful conta c t w i th the c o n tac t with th e v i c ti m ; (2) In s uf fici en t. ev i dence th at h e showed the victi m in ap prop riat e g rounds o n w hich h e is s ee kin g r e li e f : ( 1) I n su ffi ci en t e v i d e n c e that he h ad any i nappropri at e B e for e th e Co u rt i s D ef

en dant 's Co n cis e St at ement o flss u es o n A pp eal li sti ng fiv e W AG N E R , P .J. 

### OPINION AND 

### ORDER . Defe ndan t No
. 38 6 of2014 CH A R LE S B R O O K S - -· · • __ .:- : - . - - · - c .' 

### vs . - • . • . - · " " "':

I. T" · - - · - .-

. . . · • · ; ::._ . '.· .' . •·- • • 

### COMMONVlE A LT H O F P E NN S YLVANIA , , r" I Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM. - - ~ -· -· - -- - - ====-----~ - ---- -- . . 2 • during his i nves tig ation of this matter , h e had as cert a ined that D e fend ant's d ate o f birth i s August I 'IS"(, 19 , .. ; C _... 

### C g J ' 's birthdat e 

### is Janu ary 3 1 , .... an d Conn o r ~· s date of 

### birth is Ju l y 20, 2006, Id. p. l 5 , and had al s o d e t e rmined that th e c rim es oc c urred at l 30 Palm e r Ad ah m o ther about the pic tu r es . Id
. p. 4 0
. Penn s y l vania St ate Troope r Thomas H artley t e s tifi e d th at D e fendant would go to . a diff er ent p art aw ay fro m wh e r e s he w as . Id. 

# c .... fir s t t old his D e fend a nt w o uld s how him maga zi nes with pictur e s of nak e d wom e n s om e times wh e n h e w e nt th e jury that he kn o ws D e fendant as " U ncle C hucki e . " I d. pp. 31 , 37 : 

## 0...- s tated that · Ms. 

### C -1 •1 

### • rta

' 's halfb ro th er , O • 

### r B - , ag e eight ye ar s a nd in the third g ra de, t o ld h er st e pmother as ke d ab o ut 

### it. Id
. p . 21. r e mo ve d th e child 's cl o thing
. Id
. Som e ye ar s later , whe n s he w as s i x t e en y e ar s ol d, s he fin a lly tol d h e r stepmoth er ' s ni e ce ab o ut the se x ual abu s e , Id. p. 1 3 , and l at e r told h e r s t e pmo ther aft e r p e lvic ar e a . Id
. p . 15
. E ventu a lly, D e fendant o nce force d h e r h ea d d ow n on his p e nis a ft er h e had h e r clothes w e r e on. Id
. Su c h a ctivity b r ought De fen dant 's p e n is int o c on t ac t with th e victim ' s vagin a with his finger s . Id
. pp. l 0-11_. The touchin g lat e r pro g re s s e d t o "d ry humpin g" · her whil e . .

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



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

### · -~ --- -- Sometime s D e fe n dant would then r e m o v e h e r cloth in g a nd tou c h th e y oung g irl' s ch e st 

### an d · porn o graphi c ma ga z i n es wi th nak e d me n an d wom e n en ga gi ng i n s e x ual inter c ou rse . Id
. p . 9
. h e r 

### ste p gr andrnoth e r' s h o u se, Defendant would t ak e her up to hi s b e dr oo m and s how e d h e r . . ~ - b e tw ee n the age s of fi ve and ten y e ar s o ld , h er st e p g randmoth e r , 

## V'd tr 8-1111, w a s h e r
c aretak er while h e r m o ther , fath e r , o r s t e pfath e r we r e workin g . Id
. p. 8
. While the chi l d w a s at . ,,!.... • . st ep gran d mother 's so n, and he re s ided w i th hi s m o ther. N .T. p p. 6- 7
. Wh e n M s . 

# Ca E w a s

Th e first witn es s , 

# c · •• C ,1 s••·r.;, e ight ee n y ears o l d at the tim e of th e tri al , te s ti fied

·' s g randmoth e r w as in th e hou s e h e and 

### '

. to his g randmoth e r ' s h o use. Id
. p . 38. A l thou g h C a 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 PM4 • . . . · :-'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 non

# I .

I Circulated 09/30/2015 01:48 PM