IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jeffrey Tillman, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 1299 C.D. 2018

 : Submitted: February 22, 2019

Pennsylvania State Police, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: July 17, 2019

Jeffrey Tillman (Tillman) petitions for review of an Order of an 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from the Office of Attorney General (OAG), which 

denied Tillman’s appeal from the Pennsylvania State Police’s (PSP) response to his 

challenge of the accuracy of his criminal history record under the Criminal History 

Record Information Act1(CHRIA). Tillman argues the ALJ erred in concluding his 

criminal history record was accurate, and he asserts that various statutory and 

constitutional violations result from PSP continuing to maintain his criminal history 

record inaccurately. Discerning no error, we affirm.

 

1

18 Pa. C.S. §§ 9101—9183.
2

I. Factual and Procedural History

a. Tillman I 

As set forth by the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Tillman (Pa. Super., 

475 EDA 2008, filed June 3, 2009) (Tillman I), the relevant procedural history is as 

follows.

On January 24, 2003 . . . [Tillman] sexually assaulted [a victim]. 

[Tillman] was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual 

intercourse, sexual assault, indecent assault (lack of consent), indecent 

assault by forcible compulsion, and F-2 burglary. On November 13, 

2007, [Tillman] entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of 

indecent assault by forcible compulsion, graded as a misdemeanor of 

the first degree, and one count of F-2 burglary. With regard to indecent 

assault by forcible compulsion, the parties agreed to binding 

consecutive probation; however, as to the F-2 burglary, the plea was 

open.

Tillman I, slip op. at 2. The Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court)

sentenced Tillman to 2 to 10 years of confinement for his plea to the burglary charge 

and 2 years of probation and the payment of costs for his plea to the indecent assault

charge. Id. at 5-6. On appeal to the Superior Court, Tillman argued, among other 

things, that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence for indecent assault because, 

pursuant to Section 3502(d) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3502(d), he could not 

be sentenced for both burglary and indecent assault, as indecent assault was the 

offense he intended to commit after the burglarious entry. Tillman I, slip op. at 1. 

The Superior Court agreed that Tillman’s sentence of probation and costs for 

indecent assault was illegal, explaining that “[a]lthough it was permissible for 

[Tillman] to plead guilty2to both crimes, it was not permissible for the trial court to 

sentence [Tillman] on both the burglary and indecent assault charges.” Id. at 8. 

 

2 Tillman pled nolo contendere, which was treated as a guilty plea for sentencing purposes.
3

Accordingly, the Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence for indecent 

assault, but otherwise affirmed the trial court’s order. Id. at 10.

b. Tillman II and III

Since Tillman I, Tillman has filed several different actions arising out of the 

Superior Court’s order vacating his indecent assault sentence. For example, in 

Tillman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., 575 M.D. 

2011, filed December 2, 2014) (Tillman II), Tillman challenged certain conditions 

and programs imposed upon him by the Department of Corrections and the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole based on his having committed a crime 

of a sexual nature (the indecent assault). Tillman also sought to have his DNA 

removed from the Federal DNA Database, CODIS.

3

 We ultimately dismissed the 

petition in 2014. Tillman II, slip op. at 20.

On August 13, 2013, while Tillman II was pending before this Court, 

Tillman initiated a review of his criminal history record information as 

maintained by the PSP, alleging his indecent assault conviction should 

be removed because the sentence for that offense had been vacated. By 

letter dated September 4, 2013[,] from Ashley Wheeler (Wheeler), a 

central repository reviewing officer, Tillman was notified his nolo plea 

for indecent assault was correctly reflected on his criminal history 

record. Tillman appealed to the OAG by letter dated October 27, 2014. 

On February 5, 2016, ALJ Lawrence Cherba dismissed Tillman’s 

request for an evidentiary hearing on the basis it was untimely, having 

been filed 418 days after receipt of Wheeler’s letter.

 

3 CODIS is “[t]he national data bank known as the Combined DNA Index System[,] . . . a 

federal undertaking that supports criminal justice databases maintained by various law 

enforcement agencies throughout the United States of America.” Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 

A.3d 101, 113 n.15 (Pa. Super. 2011). CODIS is managed by a unit that “is responsible for 

‘developing, providing[,] and supporting the CODIS Program to federal, state[,] and local crime 

laboratories . . . to foster the exchange and comparison of forensic DNA evidence from violent 

crime investigations.’” Id. (citation omitted).
4

Tillman v. Pa. State Police (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 478 C.D. 2016, filed Jan. 12, 2017)

(Tillman III), slip op. at 1-2. Tillman petitioned for review of that dismissal, and 

this Court reversed. We concluded that the September 4, 2013 letter from Wheeler 

did not properly advise Tillman of his right to appeal Wheeler’s determination, a 

process which was separate and distinct from the initial challenge to the accuracy of 

his criminal record information. Id. at 4. Therefore, we remanded the matter for 

further proceedings.

c. Remand Hearing and Order

On remand following Tillman III,

4

the OAG notified Tillman by letter dated 

April 18, 2017, that a video-conference hearing was scheduled, and Tillman must 

submit any documentation upon which he intended to rely at the hearing to support 

his challenge. (Certified Record (C.R.) Item 15.) After one postponement due to 

technical difficulty with the video conferencing equipment, the hearing was held on

September 8, 2017. The ALJ explained that the hearing was for the limited purpose 

of determining whether the information relied upon by PSP for the criminal history 

record was accurate and PSP had the burden of proof. Section 9152(d) of CHRIA, 

18 Pa. C.S. § 9152(d).

PSP called Wheeler as its only witness, who testified as follows. She is 

employed by PSP as a legal assistant supervisor in the Access and Review Challenge 

Unit, in which she reviews criminal history requests to ensure that the histories are 

accurate and complete. (C.R. Item 25, Hr’g Tr. at 13.) Tillman submitted an initial 

request for a criminal history record check, the review of which was assigned to and 

 

4 Following this Court’s opinion and order in Tillman III, Tillman filed with this Court two 

praecipes to enforce the Order, dated March 6, 2017, and April 18, 2017, respectively, both of 

which were denied. 
5

completed by her. (Hr’g Tr. at 14-15.) Wheeler responded to the request with an 

Access and Review Packet, which included a computer-generated form of the 

information submitted in Tillman’s request, Tillman’s criminal history record, and 

forms to challenge the criminal history record if he believed his record was 

inaccurate. (Id. at 16-17.) 

Tillman’s criminal history record shows six charges from the 2005 arrest, all 

but two of which appear under the heading for disposition “nolle 

prossed/withdrawn.” (PSP Ex. B. at 2.) The remaining two charges are for indecent 

assault, which shows “nolo contendere” as the disposition, and burglary, which 

shows “nolo contendere/state correctional.” (Id.) Tillman completed and submitted 

the challenge form, explaining the inaccuracies he contended were on his criminal 

history record. (Hr’g Tr. at 18.) Tillman asserted that the “CC 3126A2, indecent 

assault was vacated as illegal [on] 6/3/2009,” pursuant to a certified court order that 

he included, and that his “DNA must be removed from [CODIS] as well.” (Id. at 20 

(quoting PSP Ex. C).) To Wheeler’s knowledge, neither PSP nor the Access Review 

Challenge Unit is involved with CODIS and neither could not do anything with 

regard to his DNA being maintained in that database. (Id. at 20-21.)

As for Tillman’s challenge to the accuracy of the criminal history record for 

his indecent assault conviction, Wheeler contacted the Lehigh County Clerk of 

Courts, who sent Wheeler the criminal complaint for Tillman’s charges, the Criminal 

Information against Tillman, the fingerprint card from the arresting agency, and the 

trial court’s Sentencing Sheets. (Id. at 23-26.) Additionally, Wheeler reviewed the 

Superior Court’s decision in Tillman I. Wheeler understood the Superior Court’s 

order, vacating Tillman’s sentence for the indecent assault charge but affirming in 

all other respects, to mean that “the nolo contendere plea stands, but the sentence 
6

that [was] previously issued has been vacated.” (Id. at 29-30.) In Wheeler’s view, 

Tillman’s criminal history record accurately reflected the Superior Court’s opinion 

and order, as the nolo contendere plea for indecent assault remained but no sentence 

was associated with the plea. (Id. at 30-31.) Wheeler notified Tillman that, for the 

above reasons, his challenge was determined to be invalid. Specifically, the notice 

stated “[i]nformation received from the Lehigh County Clerk of Courts pertaining 

[to the] arrest dated May 3, 2005[,] confirms that the sentence for the charge of 

CC3126A2, Indecent Assault was in fact vacated. However, your plea of nolo 

contendere stands and is correctly reflected on your criminal history record.” (PSP 

Ex. D.) The notice also gave Tillman points of contact in Pennsylvania and the 

federal government for information relating to his challenge to the inclusion of his

DNA in CODIS. (Id.; Hr’g Tr. at 32.) On cross-examination, Wheeler reiterated 

that anything involving CODIS was not within her purview at the Access and 

Review Challenge Unit, and she was not aware of any law otherwise. (Hr’g Tr. at 

33-34.)

Tillman testified and provided legal argument on his own behalf. Tillman 

asserted that, pursuant to CHRIA and its corresponding regulations, PSP has a duty 

to update the inaccurate information on Tillman’s criminal history record, and it has 

not done so. (Id. at 50.) With regard to the accuracy of his criminal history record, 

Tillman maintained that the Superior Court, in Tillman I, vacated the nolo 

contendere plea based upon Section 3502(d) of the Crimes Code. (Id. at 44.)

Tillman argued that the term conviction does not mean a plea or a finding of guilt 

but means only the judgment of sentence. Thus, when the Superior Court vacated 

Tillman’s sentence for indecent assault as being illegal, Tillman contended, his 

conviction for indecent assault was also vacated and only his nolo contendere plea 
7

for burglary should remain in his criminal history record. (Id. at 46.) Relatedly, 

Tillman argued that if his criminal history record continues to incorrectly reflect a 

conviction for indecent assault, he may be required to register under the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

5 upon his release from prison. 

The hearing concluded, and the ALJ provided the opportunity for post-hearing 

briefs. Tillman submitted a brief, but PSP declined to do so. By Order dated July 

26, 2018, the ALJ denied Tillman’s appeal and provided findings and reasons in 

support. (C.R. Item 32.) The ALJ found that the trial court’s Certified Records 

showed the charges against Tillman, his nolo contendere plea for indecent assault, 

and his Sentencing Sheets. Following the Superior Court’s reasoning in Tillman I, 

the ALJ determined that Tillman could plead to both the charges of burglary and 

indecent assault but could not be sentenced for both and the Superior Court intended 

only to vacate the judgment of sentence, not the verdict. (ALJ’s Findings and 

Reasons for Denying Relief at 3 (citing Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 

(Pa. Super. 2008); Commonwealth v. Byron, 465 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1983)).) 

Tillman petitions this Court for review.

6

II. Issues on Appeal

Tillman argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that Tillman’s criminal 

history record was accurate. Tillman further asserts that the ALJ erred in reaching 

that conclusion, and the ALJ violated his constitutional rights, did not act with 

impartiality, did not apply the relevant law, and did not enforce PSP’s mandatory 

 

5

42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9799.10 – 9799.75.

6 Our review of the ALJ’s Order “relate[d] to CHRIA is limited to determining whether 

constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether necessary 

findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Dunbar v. Pa. State Police, 902 A.2d 

1002, 1004 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
8

duty to maintain an accurate criminal history. Tillman also argues that, due to the 

inaccuracy of his criminal history record, PSP is obligated to remove his DNA from 

CODIS, an issue not addressed by the ALJ.

III. Discussion

Tillman first argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that Tillman’s criminal 

history record was accurate because when the Superior Court vacated his sentence 

for indecent assault in Tillman I, it also vacated his conviction for that crime. As he 

did in the hearing before the ALJ, Tillman contends that the term conviction means 

a judgment of sentence rather than a finding of guilt, and if there is no sentence, a 

verdict or plea cannot be considered a conviction. (Tillman’s Brief (Br.) at 14-16

(citing Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. 

Thompson, 106 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Bowes, J., concurring)).) In other 

words, he argues that because he could not be sentenced for both burglary and the 

indecent assault he intended to commit during the burglary under Section 3502(d) 

of the Crimes Code, his “conviction” (plea of nolo contendere) for indecent assault 

was vacated and cannot be maintained as a part of his criminal history record. 

PSP responds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s 

determination that Tillman’s criminal history record is accurate and complete. PSP 

argues that the Superior Court, in Tillman I, resolved the issue that Tillman now 

argues on appeal, as the Superior Court “vacate[d] the sentence for indecent assault”

but recognized that Tillman’s plea to that charge remained valid. (PSP’s Br. at 9 

(quoting Tillman I, slip op. at 8).) In accordance with Tillman I, PSP maintains that 

Tillman’s criminal history record is accurate because it reflects that he pled nolo 

contendere to indecent assault and that no sentence associated with that plea is listed. 

PSP asserts that Tillman’s CHRIA challenge is an improper attempt to collaterally
9

attack his indecent assault plea by asking this Court to do what the Superior Court 

did not, i.e., vacate that plea. 

We begin with a brief review of CHRIA. Pursuant to CHRIA, criminal history 

records of arrested and convicted individuals are maintained by PSP on the central 

repository, which is a “computerized central register.” Clark v. Pa. State Police, 

760 A.2d 1202, 1203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). An individual can “review, challenge, 

correct[,] and appeal the accuracy and completeness of [the individual’s] criminal 

history record” maintained in the central repository. Section 9151(a) of CHRIA, 18 

Pa. C.S. § 9151(a). In challenging the record’s accuracy, the individual may specify 

which portions of the criminal history record are incorrect and what the corrected 

version should be. Section 9152(c) of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9152(c). The burden 

is on PSP or the criminal justice agency that maintains the record to prove its 

accuracy once it is challenged by an individual. 18 Pa. C.S. § 9152(d); Clark, 760 

A.2d at 1204. Where it is established that a criminal history record is inaccurate, 

PSP has a duty to correct the record under Section 9114 of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 

9114. 

“Criminal history record information” is defined by Section 9102 of CHRIA 

to include “[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies concerning 

individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of 

identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or 

other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom.” 18 Pa. 

C.S. § 9102 (emphasis added). CHRIA further defines “disposition” as:

Information indicating that criminal proceedings have been concluded, 

including information disclosing that police have elected not to refer a 

matter for prosecution, that a prosecuting authority has elected not to 

commence criminal proceedings or that a grand jury has failed to indict 

and disclosing the nature of the termination of the proceedings; or 
10

information disclosing that proceedings have been indefinitely 

postponed and also disclosing the reason for such postponement. 

Dispositions of criminal proceedings in the Commonwealth shall 

include, but not be limited to, acquittal, acquittal by reason of 

insanity, pretrial probation or diversion, charge dismissed, guilty plea, 

nolle prosequi, no information filed, nolo contendere plea, convicted, 

abatement, discharge under rules of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, demurrer sustained, pardoned, sentence commuted, 

mistrial-defendant discharged, discharge from probation or parole or 

correctional supervision.

18 Pa. C.S. § 9102 (emphasis added); see also 37 Pa. Code § 195.1 (same).

PSP’s duty to keep this information accurate and complete is further 

articulated in CHRIA’s regulations, which require the listing for each criminal 

charge in a criminal history record include:

(1) The full name and any aliases of the individual charged.

(2) An accurate statement of the crime charged, including: the title of 

the offense; and the statutory citation . . . .

(3) The final or latest disposition of the charge.

(4) The sentence imposed for a conviction of the charge.

37 Pa. Code § 195.2(a), (b) (emphasis added). Tillman asserts that his record is 

inaccurate because it has listed the plea of nolo contendere as the disposition for the 

charge of indecent assault, despite Tillman I’s vacation of his sentence for that 

charge. Thus, the crux of Tillman’s issue is whether listing a disposition of a plea 

of nolo contendere on a charge for which the sentence was later vacated accurately

and completely reflects Tillman’s criminal history record under CHRIA. After 

reviewing Tillman I and carefully considering Tillman’s arguments and the cases 

cited therein, we agree with the ALJ that the criminal history record is accurate and 

complete.
11

As Tillman notes, there is a distinction between the legal and common sense 

meaning of the term “conviction.” (Tillman’s Br. at 14-15.) In the technical or legal 

sense, a conviction refers to a judgment of sentence. Hale, 85 A.3d at 581-82.7 As 

the Superior Court explained in Hale, Pennsylvania courts have long distinguished 

between an adjudication of guilt, or verdict, and a conviction as those terms are used 

technically. Id. at 581. Thus, while a defendant may plead to or be found guilty of 

burglary and theft, a trial court cannot “convict” a defendant of both those charges 

by imposing a sentence for both. Id. This means that the Superior Court’s decision 

vacating the judgment of sentence for indecent assault vacated Tillman’s 

“conviction” for indecent assault in the technical sense. However, we disagree with 

Tillman that the Superior Court’s vacating his technical conviction, i.e., the 

judgment of sentence, for indecent assault had the effect of rendering reference to 

that charge and his plea thereto in his criminal history record inaccurate for purposes 

of CHRIA. 

First, contrary to Tillman’s assertion, while the Superior Court vacated 

Tillman’s judgment of sentence, it also upheld the validity of his plea to the indecent 

assault in Tillman I. The Superior Court was clear that Tillman’s plea to both 

indecent assault and burglary was permissible, even if he could not be validly 

sentenced on both charges. Tillman I, slip op. at 8. 

Second, for the purposes of CHRIA, a plea is a “disposition,” and criminal 

history record information, regardless of whether there is a corresponding sentence 

for that disposition. The broad definition of disposition under CHRIA includes

guilty pleas, nolo contendere pleas, convictions, and other “[i]nformation indicating 

that criminal proceedings have been concluded,” but does not reference sentencing 

 

7 Although not binding on this Court, we may consider Superior Court decisions for their 

persuasive value. A.S. v. Pa. State Police, 87 A.3d 914, 929 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
12

as such information. 18 Pa. C.S. § 9102. The regulations, however, do include 

information relating to sentencing as an item to be included in a criminal history 

record, but as a piece of information separate from a disposition. Specifically, 

Section 195.2 of the regulations lists “disposition” and “sentence imposed” as 

separate items in the list of information that should appear for any criminal charge 

on a criminal history record. As such, information regarding the disposition of a 

criminal charge is independent from information regarding the sentence or lack 

thereof related to that charge. Therefore, CHRIA and the related regulations do not 

limit the inclusion of only dispositions of “convictions” in the technical sense, as 

Tillman argues, but broadly include pleas as a specific type of disposition, separate 

from any sentence that may occur as a result, as information that must be contained 

in a criminal history record. 

Here, Tillman’s criminal history record does not show a judgment of sentence 

for the charge of indecent assault; it reflects only his plea of nolo contendere, a plea 

that the Superior Court upheld as valid. By contrast, the disposition for the burglary 

charge shows both the plea and the notation of a state correctional institution, 

reflecting a sentence of incarceration. This information is the proper representation 

of the dispositions and sentences for the two charges and is consistent with the 

statutory definition of disposition and the regulatory provisions requiring both the

disposition and sentence imposed be reflected on a criminal history record. 18 Pa. 

C.S. § 9102; 37 Pa. Code § 195.2(b). Therefore, the ALJ did not err in denying 

Tillman’s appeal based on the conclusion that Tillman’s criminal history record is 

accurate and complete. 

Tillman’s remaining arguments are primarily premised upon this Court 

finding that his criminal history record is inaccurate. Tillman asserts that because 
13

his criminal history record is inaccurate: the ALJ did not enforce PSP’s mandatory 

duty to maintain an accurate criminal record and did not follow controlling law; the 

ALJ and PSP violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection under 

the law, and reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution; and PSP has a duty to 

remove his DNA from CODIS. Tillman further argues that the ALJ did not act with 

impartiality. However, because Tillman’s criminal history record is accurate, 

Tillman’s remaining arguments necessarily fail. PSP is maintaining an accurate 

criminal history record for Tillman under the governing provisions of CHRIA. 

Therefore, there are no constitutional violations arising from an inaccurate record,

and there is no basis for determining the ALJ did not follow the controlling law.

To the extent that Tillman’s arguments regarding the impartiality of the ALJ 

and PSP’s alleged obligation to remove Tillman’s DNA information from CODIS 

are not premised on the inaccuracy of his criminal history record, we are 

unpersuaded by those arguments. Tillman has not explained how the ALJ acted 

without impartiality, and the hearing transcript shows no indication of impropriety 

or bias. With regard to Tillman’s DNA argument, the ALJ did not address this issue. 

However, criminal history record information is not defined to include DNA 

samples, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9102. Thus, Tillman’s DNA, particularly if it is in CODIS, 

is not within the scope of these CHRIA proceedings.

IV. Conclusion

Although the Superior Court vacated Tillman’s judgment of sentence, i.e., 

technical conviction, the Court recognized the validity of his nolo contendere plea. 

Under CHRIA, a plea of nolo contendere is a disposition and, as such, is included 

as part of an individual’s criminal history record. The disposition is separate from 
14

any sentence that may arise out of the disposition and must be included in a criminal 

history regardless of whether there is a judgment of sentence. Accordingly, the ALJ 

did not err by concluding that Tillman’s criminal history record information was 

accurate under CHRIA, and we affirm.

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jeffrey Tillman, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 1299 C.D. 2018

 : 

Pennsylvania State Police, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, July 17, 2019, the July 26, 2018 Order of the Administrative Law 

Judge of the Office of Attorney General is AFFIRMED.

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge