Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Robert POLZER, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 182 A.3d 431
Docket Number: No. 457 WAL 2016
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Robert POLZER, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 182
Pages: 431–431

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Robert POLZER, Petitioner
No. 457 WAL 2016
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
February 23, 2018
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2018, the Motion to Amend Appendix C is GRANTED. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Whether the appellate Superior Court erred in its findings and conclusions, and the PCRA court committed legal error in denying Petitioner's claim that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799, i.e., § 9799.15(e) and (e)(3) violate the due process clause of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the due process rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 1, § 1, and Art. 1, § 9, and, therefore, violate the prohibition of the Ex Post Facto Clauses to the United States Constitution, Art. 1, § 10, Clause 1, and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 1, § 17, where Petitioner is clearly not designated as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) to justify and warrant such progressively rigid conditions and "quarterly in-person" reporting requirements previously subject only to those deemed an SVP, whereas, SORNA'S irrebuttable presumption that all sexual offenders pose a high risk of reoffending violates procedural and substantive due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and as such, SORNA's Internet notification provision and quarterly verification requirements constitute an ex post facto law under the Pennsylvania Constitution?
The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017).