Court Opinion

ID: 9912126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 17:09:47.267703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:04.902992
License: Public Domain

J-S41041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  STEPHEN JOHN BEEGLE                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 277 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 17, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-05-CR-0000313-2019,
                          CP-05-CR-0000330-2019

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  STEPHEN JOHN BEEGLE                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 278 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 17, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-05-CR-0000313-2019,
                          CP-05-CR-0000330-2019

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: December 21, 2023

       Appellant Steven John Beegle appeals the judgment of sentence entered

by the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County to multiple counts of

corruption of minors, indecent exposure, open lewdness, and intimidating a

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41041-23

witness.     Appellant claims the trial court erred in refusing to stay his

registration requirements under the Sexual Offender Registration and

Notification Act (SORNA). We affirm.

       The relevant factual background and procedural history of this case are

as follows. On August 6, 2021, Appellant entered a negotiated no contest plea

on dockets 313-2019 and 330-2019 to four counts of corruption of minors

(third-degree felonies), two counts of corruption of minors (first-degree

misdemeanors), four counts of indecent exposure, four counts of open

lewdness, and one count of intimidating a witness.1 Appellant negotiated an

aggregate sentence of seven to twenty years’ imprisonment.

       On January 5, 2023, Appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea. On

January 17, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s request to withdraw his

guilty plea, sentenced Appellant according to the terms of his plea agreement,

and determined that he was a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). The trial court

also denied Appellant’s request to stay his SORNA requirements pending the

remand decision in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, 232 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2020).

       On January 19, 2023, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion and on

January 23, 2023, filed an amended post-sentence motion. Appellant asked

the trial court to reconsider 1) his request to withdraw his plea, 2) its SVP

determination, and 3) his request that his SORNA requirements be stayed.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301(a)(1)(ii), 6301(a)(1)(i), 3127(a), 5901, and
4952(a)(1), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S41041-23

       After the trial court held a hearing on February 27, 2023, the trial court

entered one order for both dockets on March 2, 2023, granting Appellant’s

motion in part by vacating his SVP status, but denied Appellant’s post-

sentence motion in all other respects. On March 6, 2023, Appellant filed a

timely notice of appeal at each docket.2

       Appellant raises one issue for our review on appeal: “[w]hether [the trial

court] committed err[or] by denying Appellant’s request to stay the

application of SORNA requirements pending appellate review of the decision

of the Honorable Alison Bell Royer in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri related to

the constitutionality of SORNA?” Appellant’s Brief, at 7. Specifically, Appellant

claims that SORNA “is clearly punitive in nature and contains an irrebuttable

presumption that Appellant is at high risk of recidivism though not supported

by the record.” Id. at 14.

____________________________________________

2 We recognize that Appellant filed two notices of appeal listing both docket

numbers. Our Supreme Court has held that separate notices of appeal are
required when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one trial
court docket. Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 2018),
overruled in part, Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021)
(reaffirming Walker, but holding that amended Pa.R.A.P. 902 allows appellate
court to exercise discretion to allow correction of the error where appropriate);
see Pa.R.A.P. 902 (amended May 18, 2023).
       We also note that in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141
(Pa.Super. 2020) (en banc), this Court held that even if an appellant lists
multiple trial court docket numbers in their notices of appeal, the appeals may
proceed if the appellant filed the appropriate number of notices of appeal. Id.
at 1148. As Appellant filed two notices of appeal, Appellant has substantially
complied with the requirements of Walker. See Johnson, 236 A.3d at 1148.

                                           -3-
J-S41041-23

      In Torsilieri, the Commonwealth appealed from the trial court’s

determination that Revised Subchapter H of SORNA violates numerous

constitutional protections by employing an irrebuttable presumption that “all

sexual offenders are dangerous and pose a high risk of recidivation,

necessitating registration and notification procedures to protect the public

from recidivist sexual offenders.” Torsilieri, 232 A.3d at 573.

      The Supreme Court in Torsilieri recognized that “while courts are

empowered to enforce constitutional rights, they should remain mindful that

the wisdom of a public policy is one for the legislature, and the General

Assembly's    enactments    are   entitled    to   a   strong   presumption   of

constitutionality rebuttable only by a demonstration that they clearly, plainly,

and palpably violate constitutional requirements.” See id. at 596. Further, the

Supreme Court emphasized that “it will be a rare situation where a court would

reevaluate a legislative policy determination, which can only be justified in a

case involving the infringement of constitutional rights and a consensus of

scientific evidence undermining the legislative determination.” Id.

      Thus, as the Supreme Court in Torsilieri determined that the record

was not sufficient to determine whether the appellee had undermined the

validity of the legislative findings underlying Revised Subchapter H, the

Supreme Court remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing “to allow the

parties to address whether a consensus has developed to call into question

the relevant legislative policy decisions impacting offenders’ constitutional

rights.” Torsilieri, 232 A.3d at 595.

                                        -4-
J-S41041-23

      In this case, although Appellant claimed at sentencing and in his post-

sentence motion that he was entitled to a stay of his registration requirements

under Revised Subchapter H pursuant to Torsilieri, Appellant did not attempt

to offer any scientific evidence or learned testimony to support his claims at

the hearing on his post-sentence motion.

      In similar circumstances, this Court has found that an appellant fails to

satisfy his burden to show that Revised Subchapter H clearly, palpably, and

plainly violates the constitution by employing an irrebuttable presumption

where the appellant failed to produce any scientific evidence to support his

claims that underlying legislative policy infringes on [the] appellant’s rights.”

Commonwealth v. Villanueva-Pabon, __A.3d__, 2023 PA Super 222, 2023

WL 7137301, at *7 (Pa.Super. Oct. 31, 2023). This Court determined that a

party cannot successfully argue that the General Assembly’s factual

presumptions have been undermined by recent scientific studies without

presenting any scientific studies to the trial court. Id. (citations omitted).

      In this case, Appellant had the opportunity to present evidence to

develop his Torsilieri claim and challenge the presumption of Revised

Subchapter H’s constitutionality at his post-sentence motion hearing but failed

to do so. Appellant failed to recognize the Torsilieri Court’s emphasis on the

need for scientific evidence to support a challenge to the constitutional claims

at issue. As such, Appellant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law by simply

citing to the Torsilieri decision as Appellant was required to present evidence

                                       -5-
J-S41041-23

to meet his burden to challenge to show Revised Subchapter H clearly,

palpably, and plainly violates the constitution.

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

 12/21/2023

                                      -6-