Court Opinion

ID: 9635621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:56:48.674845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:31.009733
License: Public Domain

*847BENDER, J.,
Dissenting.
¶ 1 The Appellant pled guilty on July 11, 2000 to the offense of Indecent Sexual Assault. The ten-year-old victim was the child of a woman who permitted Appellant to stay in her home because Appellant had no other place to stay. On March 15, 2001, Appellant was sentenced to undergo incarceration in the Indiana County Jail for a period of not less than nine months nor more than twenty-three months. Appellant was given credit for time served. Appellant was further sentenced to three years probation, which was to run consecutive to the period of incarceration. Accordingly, absent consideration of time served prior to sentencing, Appellant will have no further involvement with the criminal system, after March 15, 2004.
¶ 2 Appellant was further found to be a sexually violent predator under the provisions of Megan’s Law II and sentenced to comply with registration requirements of Megan’s Law II for the remainder of his life.
¶ 3 Appellant is now before this Court raising the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Appellant was a sexually violent predator. In his Supplemental Brief, Appellant also raises the issues concerning the constitutionality of Megan’s Law II set forth in the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted on behalf of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
¶ 4 In the documents submitted to this Court, there is little discussion of the sufficiency issue and voluminous discussion of the constitutional issues raised in the Ami-cus Curiae Brief and the Brief of the At-tomey General. Also the oral argument focused primarily on the constitutional issues.
¶ 5 The constitutional issues raised are currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for disposition. See Case Appendix of Amicus Curiae. Clearly the jurisdiction as to the constitutional issues rests with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722(7).
¶ 6 Given the uncertainty of the Megan’s Law II provisions currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and given the lack of focus in this case on the sexually violent predator decision, I would defer making a decision in the instant case concerning the sexually violent predator status until the Supreme Court has ruled. I believe that the sexually violent predator decision could be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court. The issues currently before our Court and before the Supreme Court raise due process issues relating to the adjudicatory process (see Brief of Amicus Curiae, pp. 36-48) and issues as to the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the adjudicatory process (see Brief of Amicus Curiae, pp. 49-61). Given the issues raised as to the adjudicatory process, it would seem prudent to wait for Supreme Court guidance before addressing the sexually violent predator decision.
¶ 7 To defer the decision would in no way prejudice the Appellant or the interest of society because Appellant will be on probation until March 15,2004.
¶ 8 Accordingly, I would defer the sexually violent predator decision in the instant case pending the Supreme Court ruling on Megan’s Law II.