J-S44016- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. OSCAR HATCHETT, JR. Appellant No. 1823 WDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 16 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 02

- CR -0003441-2000
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2014 Oscar Hatchett, Jr., appeals from the order of the Al legheny County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition brought pu rsuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 After careful review, we affirm the order of lower court, and further conclude that Hatchett is not su bject to the Megan’s
Law 2 registration requirements. On appeal, Hatchett challenges the retroactive applicati on of the Megan’s Law registration requirements. We note that the “statutory and rule-based requirements governing a PCRA petition do not apply to a

____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541- 9546.

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41 (as amended 2011, Dec. 20, P.L. 446, No. 111, § 12).J-S44016- 14

- 2 -

challenge to the retroactive application of Megan’s Law , but that this Court has jurisdiction to review orders confirming or rejecting a retroactive registration requirement.” Commonwealth v. Bundy , 2014 PA Super 144, *10 (filed July 10, 2014). After a thorough review of the record, we find it devoid of any order confirming or rejecting a retroact ive registration requirement. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Hatchett’s petition for failure to raise a c ognizable claim. Nevertheless, upon our review of the record, we found no support for Hatchett’s contention that he is subject to the Megan’s L aw registration requirements. Initially, Hatchett entered negotiated guilty pleas to indecent assault 3 and unlawful restraint, 4 stemming from an incident with a fellow Pennsylvania Culinary Institute student. The court sent enced Hatchett to one to two years’ incarceration with 30 months’ probati on. At the time, Hatchett’s conviction did not require sexual offender r egistration. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(b)(1); 42 Pa.C.S. §9795(a)(1) (expir ed Dec. 20, 2012). On December 20, 2012, a new version of Megan’s Law wen t into effect. 5 As part of the new statute, an individual who, on or after the

____________________________________________ 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(1).

5 The Pennsylvania Legislature amended Megan’s Law to co mply with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). 42 U.S.C. § 16901.J-S44016- 14

- 3 -

effective date of the law, was serving a sentence of pro bation or parole for a sexually violent offense became subject to its provisions. The new statute also included Hatchett’s indece nt assault conviction as a sexually violent offense, requiring Megan’s Law registration for a peri od of fifteen years. Hatchett subsequently violated his probation, and the t rial court resentenced him on July 26, 2012. Upon resentencing, H atchett was categorized as a Tier I sexual offender pursuant to the new version of Megan’s Law, and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole informed him that he was required to register. On March 14, 2014, during the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature again a mended Megan’s Law to exclude persons convicted of indecent assault, graded as a misdemeanor of the second d egree, from the statute’s registration requirements. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799 .13(3.1)(ii)(B). The Legislature made this amendment effective immediately and retroactive to December 20, 2012

– the effective date of the registration requirements a t issue in this appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. Giving this law retroactive effect, as the Legislature mandated, Hatchett is not now , and effectively
never was, subject to the Megan’s Law registration requirements. See Bundy at *10 n.4. 6

____________________________________________ 6 We note with concern that the Commonwealth filed its brief on June 6, 2014 with no mention of the March 14, 2014 amendment , and remind Appellee of its duty of candor to the tribunal pursuan t to Rule 3.3(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.J-S44016- 14

- 4 -

Order affirmed. We direct the trial court to issue an order consistent with this judgment order and forward a copy to the Pe nnsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/22/2014