Court Opinion

ID: 9841488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 16:10:52.304271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:11.396363
License: Public Domain

J-S20009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ARTHUR F. GUPTON                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2892 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0004847-2012

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                           FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

       Appellant, Arthur F. Gupton, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence

entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 20, 2022,

designating Appellant as a Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) and imposing

lifetime registration under Subchapter I of the Sexual Offender Registration

and Notification Act (“SORNA”),1 following a remand from this Court. After

careful review, we affirm.

       In October 2012, a jury found Appellant guilty of Rape, Kidnapping,

Sexual Assault, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Corruption of Minors,

and Indecent Assault of Minors in regard to an incident that occurred in 1997.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.51-9799.75.
J-S20009-23

On May 31, 2013, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 23.5-52

years of incarceration and determined Appellant to be an SVP.

       In 2013, Appellant timely appealed his judgment of sentence. After this

Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and the Supreme Court denied

review, Appellant’s sentence became final on August 12, 2015.2

       Appellant filed a timely Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)3 Petition on

April 29, 2016, raising an ineffectiveness of counsel claim unrelated to the

current appeal.       The PCRA court dismissed the Petition, and Appellant

appealed.     This Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief based upon the

ineffectiveness claim but vacated sua sponte “his judgment of sentence, to

the extent it required SORNA compliance, as well as his designation as an

SVP[,]” based upon the intervening decisions in Commonwealth v. Muniz,

164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth

v. Santana, 266 A.3d 528 (Pa. 2021), and Commonwealth v. Butler, 173

A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“Butler I”), reversed, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020)

(“Butler II”).4 Commonwealth v. Gupton, No. 731 EDA 2018, 2019 WL

____________________________________________

2 Commonwealth v. Gupton, 116 A.3d 687 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished

memorandum), allocatur denied, 116 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2015).

3 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

4 In Muniz, the Supreme Court declared the retroactive application of the
increased, punitive SORNA registration requirements unconstitutional in
violation of the ex post facto clause. Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1193. While this
Court initially declared the SVP determination procedure unconstitutional in
Butler I, the Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision in Butler
II. Butler II, 226 A.3d at 976.

                                           -2-
J-S20009-23

2596383, at *8 (Pa. Super. filed June 25, 2019) (unpublished memorandum).

This Court remanded the case “to the trial court to instruct [Appellant] on his

proper reporting and registration requirements.” Id.

       Following    remand,     Appellant      filed   several   overlapping   petitions,

motions, and appeals, both counselled and pro se. Relevant to the instant

disposition, while the case was pending on remand, Appellant filed pro se a

second PCRA Petition on March 19, 2021 (“Second PCRA Petition”).                      He

asserted that his sentence was illegal based upon a violation of the ex post

facto clause and claimed that the court improperly calculated his prior record

score in 2013.

       On April 20, 2022, prior to addressing the Second PCRA Petition, the

court complied with this Court’s remand order to instruct Appellant as to his

proper registration requirements.              Pursuant to the General Assembly’s

intervening enactment of Subchapter I and in light of Butler II, the court

designated Appellant as an SVP and instructed him as to his lifetime

registration requirements.5

____________________________________________

5 Following the decision in Muniz, the General Assembly enacted Subchapter

I, addressing individuals, such as Appellant, convicted of a sexual offense
committed prior to December 20, 2012. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.52. Subchapter I
imposes lifetime registration for rape and for SVPs. 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.55(b).

                                           -3-
J-S20009-23

         On April 21, 2022, Appellant filed a counselled Notice of Appeal “from

the Judgment of Sentence entered in this matter April 20, 2022.”6

         While his counseled appeal was pending, Appellant filed pro se a

“Petition for Reconsideration” on May 2, 2022, with the trial court.7

         On May 10, 2022, the court addressed the Second PCRA Petition by filing

a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss and subsequently dismissed it

on June 30, 2022.8

         On December 2, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. 9 In the

Rule 1925(b) Statement, counsel summarized the case history but did not

specifically raise any issue for appellate review, instead including, verbatim,

the following issue which Appellant raised pro se in his Motion for

Reconsideration:

____________________________________________

6 We note that the Order of April 20, 2022, may not technically be a “Judgment

of Sentence” as it designated Appellant as an SVP and imposed non-punitive
Subchapter I registration requirements. See Butler II, 226 A.3d at 976;
Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602, 626-7 (Pa. 2020).

7 The trial court recognized that Motion for Reconsideration was untimely given

the pending appeal. Tr. Ct. Op., 12/12/22, at 1 n.1.

8 The court explained that dismissal of the Second PCRA Petition was
appropriate “because the sentencing aspect of the original sentence had not
concluded.” Tr. Ct. Op. at 4, n.4. The court observed, however, that Appellant
could “refile at the appropriate time.” Id.

9 The trial court explained that clerical errors caused the delay.   Tr. Ct. Op. at
4 n.5.

                                           -4-
J-S20009-23

       Petitioner states that because this crime took place in 1997, that
       he should not have been subjected to a law that was established
       in 2022. Even if this decision was to be made retroactive, that
       still would eliminate petitioner from these consequences, because
       these stipulation of S.O.R.N.A. gives a greater harm and makes
       something legal when it was not legal during the time of the
       alleged crime.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 12/9/20, at ¶ 5.

       Counsel, however, stated that the trial court “was correct on April 20,

2022 to find that it was bound by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's

intervening reversal of Butler I, and accordingly reimposed the SVP

designation and lifetime registration requirements.” Id. at ¶ 3.10

       In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the court interpreted Appellant’s issue as

challenging the retroactive application of Subchapter I.      It dismissed this

claim, relying upon Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions, which had been

filed after this Court’s remand of the instant case, rejecting challenges to the

retroactive application of Subchapter I’s registration requirements and

dismissing other constitutional challenges to the SVP designation process.

See Tr. Ct. Op. at 4-5 (discussing Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d

602 (Pa. 2020), and Butler II, 226 A.3d 972). The trial court, therefore,

concluded that it had properly designated Appellant as an SVP and accurately

instructed him regarding the applicable lifetime registration requirements

pursuant to Subchapter I. Tr. Ct. Op. at 5.

____________________________________________

10 Counsel asserted that he would file a brief and petition to withdraw pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Id. at ¶ 1. The record does not reflect
such filings.

                                           -5-
J-S20009-23

       Appellant filed a counseled brief to this Court, appealing from the Order

entered on April 20, 2022, raising the following question: “Did the trial court

err by dismissing the PCRA Petition?” Appellant’s Br. at 3.

       We deny relief on this claim for several reasons. First, the order entered

on April 20, 2022, from which this appeal was filed did not dismiss a PCRA

Petition. Rather, the April 20, 2022 Order designated Appellant as an SVP and

reimposed lifetime registration. The court did not dismiss Appellant’s Second

PCRA Petition until June 30, 2022, two months after counsel filed the instant

Notice of Appeal. Simply put, Appellant has not appealed the dismissal of his

Second PCRA Petition.

       Second, Appellant waived the stated issue by failing to include it in his

counseled Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

       Finally, Appellant baldly relies on the decision rendered by the Chester

County Court of Common Pleas in Torsilieri when he requests that this Court

vacate his SVP designation and registration requirements. Appellant’s Br. at

9 (citing Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, CP-CR-0001570-2016 (Chester Cty.

Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 23, 2022). Appellant does not explain how Torsilieri, which

does not involve an SVP designation and addresses the registration

requirements of Subchapter H, rather than Subchapter I, applies to him.11

____________________________________________

11 Torsilieri is currently pending before the Supreme Court at Docket No. 97

MAP 2022.

                                           -6-
J-S20009-23

     Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in applying the

Supreme Court’s most recent decisions in Butler II and Lacombe.

     Order affirmed.

     Judge Kunselman joins the memorandum.

     Judge Colins files a concurring statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/22/2023

                                    -7-