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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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

Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition brought pursuant 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 subject to the Megan’s 

Law2

 registration requirements. 

On appeal, Hatchett challenges the retroactive application 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 retroactive registration 

requirement. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court’s 

dismissal of Hatchett’s petition for failure to raise a cognizable claim.

Nevertheless, upon our review of the record, we found no support for 

Hatchett’s contention that he is subject to the Megan’s Law registration

requirements. Initially, Hatchett entered negotiated guilty pleas to indecent 

assault3

 and unlawful restraint,4 stemming from an incident with a fellow 

Pennsylvania Culinary Institute student. The court sentenced Hatchett to 

one to two years’ incarceration with 30 months’ probation. At the time, 

Hatchett’s conviction did not require sexual offender registration. See 18 

Pa.C.S. § 3126(b)(1); 42 Pa.C.S. §9795(a)(1) (expired Dec. 20, 2012). 

On December 20, 2012, a new version of Megan’s Law went 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 comply 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 probation or parole for a 

sexually violent offense became subject to its provisions. The new statute 

also included Hatchett’s indecent assault conviction as a sexually violent 

offense, requiring Megan’s Law registration for a period of fifteen years.

Hatchett subsequently violated his probation, and the trial court 

resentenced him on July 26, 2012. Upon resentencing, Hatchett 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 amended Megan’s Law to exclude persons convicted of 

indecent assault, graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree, 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 at 

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 pursuant 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 Pennsylvania Board of 

Probation and Parole. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/22/2014