Court Opinion

ID: 9906311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 17:10:09.254974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:14.610551
License: Public Domain

J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23
                               2023 PA Super 250

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ELLIOTT MORRISON CRENSHAW, JR.          :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 49 WDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 8, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-02-CR-0002820-2020

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :             IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                               :                  PENNSYLVANIA
                               :
            v.                 :
                               :
                               :
  KEVIN RAY MCBRIDE            :
                               :
                Appellant      :             No. 46 WDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 8, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-02-CR-0008685-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 KEVIN RAY MCBRIDE                       :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 50 WDA 2022
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 8, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-02-CR-0007367-2020

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

OPINION BY BOWES, J.:                              FILED: December 1, 2023

        These unrelated appeals by Elliott Morrison Crenshaw, Jr., and Kevin

Ray McBride (collectively “Appellants”) were taken from their respective

judgments of sentence imposed after they were convicted pursuant to 18

Pa.C.S. § 4915.2(1)(a) for failing to comply with the provisions of Subchapter

I of Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act

(“SORNA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.51-9799.75.1 Both appeals present the same

legal issue: whether Appellants’ convictions pursuant to the North Carolina

statute proscribing taking indecent liberties with children obligated them to

register under Subchapter I of SORNA.            Following careful review of the

implicated statutes in light of the applicable law, we are constrained to hold

that Appellants had no duty to register in Pennsylvania.        Accordingly, we

vacate their judgments of sentence, reverse their convictions, and discharge

them.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 For the sake of brevity, in discussing statutes within Subchapter I, we
hereafter omit the initial “9799.” and reference only the number that follows
the decimal point. For example, rather than repeatedly stating “§ 9799.55”
and “§ 9799.56,” we shall refer to those provisions as “§ 55” and “§ 56.”

                                           -2-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

I.     Facts and Procedural History

       We glean the relevant factual and procedural history of these cases from

the certified records, particularly from the affidavits of probable cause and

Megan’s Law packets compiled by the respective law enforcement agencies in

the underlying cases.2

       A.     Crenshaw

       Crenshaw committed the offense of taking indecent liberties with

children in North Carolina on July 30, 1993.      See N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a)

(defining conduct that is prohibited with children under the age of sixteen if

the perpetrator is at least five years older than the child, as discussed more

fully infra). He was sentenced in September 1994 to three to ten years of

imprisonment.3 See N.T. Trial (Crenshaw), 12/8/21, at 7 (Commonwealth

Exhibit 2). Upon release in September 2002, Crenshaw became subject to

North Carolina’s thirty-year sexual offender registration requirement.      See

N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.6(4)(a), (5) (defining taking indecent liberties with

children as a sexually violent offense that results in a reportable conviction);

14-208.7(a) (mandating that a resident with a reportable conviction register

immediately upon release from confinement and maintain registration for at

____________________________________________

2 The parties stipulated to the factual averments contained within the affidavits

of probable cause and Megan’s Law packets. See N.T. Trial (Crenshaw),
12/8/21, at 7; N.T. Trial (McBride), 12/8/21, at 7-8. Thus, the underlying
facts in these matters are undisputed.

3Crenshaw was not found to be a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). See
Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 (Out of State Registration/Tier Form, 5/11/18).

                                           -3-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

least thirty years unless successfully petitioning to shorten the period); 14-

208.10 (identifying registration information regarding offenders that is

available for public inspection). See also Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 (Out-of-

State Registration Questions, 12/20/10).

      Crenshaw subsequently relocated to Pennsylvania and first registered

here in 2011 while housed as an inmate at the Allegheny County Jail. See

Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 (Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) Megan’s Law

Section Offender Court Information at 6).          In 2019, the Allegheny County

Sheriff’s Office began investigating non-compliant sex-offenders, including

Crenshaw, who last registered in 2017.         In January 2020, Crenshaw was

charged for failing to register in 2018 and 2019. Crenshaw filed an omnibus

pretrial   motion   seeking   to   dismiss   the    charges   on   the   basis   that

§ 4915.2(1)(a), which criminalizes the failure to comply with Subchapter I of

SORNA, did not apply to him. The trial court denied the motion, Crenshaw

elected to proceed to a trial without a jury, and the trial court found him guilty

and sentenced him to two years of probation and eighteen months of

electronic monitoring. This timely appeal followed, and both Crenshaw and

the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      B.     McBride

      In May 2011, McBride was convicted pursuant to North Carolina’s § 14-

202.1(a) for taking indecent liberties with children earlier that year, sentenced

to nineteen to twenty-three months of imprisonment, and, like Crenshaw,

required to register for a thirty-year period under the North Carolina law

                                       -4-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

referenced above. In August 2014, McBride moved to Pennsylvania and began

to register as a sexual offender. He was initially registered at an address in

Clairton, Pennsylvania, but in September 2020, deputies of the Allegheny

County Sheriff’s Office conducted a compliance check and discovered that

McBride    had    vacated the       property without reporting    his    change   in

circumstances to PSP.

       At Case      No. 7367,      McBride     was charged with   a     violation of

§ 4915.2(1)(a) for failing to report his change in address. Three days later,

McBride was arrested in connection with this charge and incarcerated at the

Allegheny County Jail. On September 23, 2020, McBride’s registered address

was changed to the Allegheny County Jail. He was released from confinement

on the same day. On November 2, 2020, detectives of the Pittsburgh Police

Department determined that McBride had not updated his residency

information following his release from jail. At Case No. 8685, McBride was

charged with a second violation of § 4915.2(1)(a).

       His two cases were consolidated in the trial court4 and McBride filed an

omnibus pretrial motion asserting that the charges should be dismissed

because he was not subject to registration under Subchapter I. The trial court

denied this motion and the case proceeded to a non-jury trial at which McBride

was found guilty in both cases and sentenced to an aggregate term of one

year of probation. McBride filed a timely notice of appeal in each case, and

____________________________________________

4 Both Crenshaw and McBride were tried by the same judge.

                                           -5-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

both he and the trial court complied with their respective obligations pursuant

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.

      C.    Appellate Procedural History

      Appellants’ appeals were assigned to the instant panel on January 24,

2023. The issue briefed by the parties was whether, applying the general

rules of statutory construction, the North Carolina offense was similar to a

Pennsylvania offense enumerated in Subchapter I such that Appellants were

required to register here.    We initially concluded that sufficient similarity

existed in a non-precedential decision filed on June 20, 2023. Appellants filed

timely applications for panel reconsideration or en banc reargument, asserting

for the first time that the framework for the similarity analysis adopted by our

Supreme Court in A.L. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 274 A.3d 1228 (Pa.

2022), controlled and mandated a different result. On August 15, 2023, we

granted panel reconsideration, withdrew our prior decision, and ordered the

parties to submit new briefs discussing A.L. in connection with these cases.

The parties filed their respective briefs, and these appeals are again ripe for

adjudication.

II.   Issue and Applicable Law

      Appellants raise the following identical issue for our consideration:

      Where Subchapter I of SORNA does not apply to [Appellants’]
      conviction[s] from North Carolina for indecent liberties with
      children because it was not “similar” under §§ 9799.55 and
      9799.56 to Pennsylvania’s indecent assault statute, was the trial
      court required to grant [their] motion[s] to dismiss?

                                     -6-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

       Put another way, where an out-of-state statute is sufficiently
       different from Pennsylvania’s or, at the very least, is ambiguous,
       does Subchapter I not compel registration, particularly in light of
       the rule of lenity?

McBride’s brief at 5 (cleaned up, emphasis in original); Crenshaw’s brief at 4.5

       Since this is a question of statutory interpretation, our standard of

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth

v. Finnecy, 249 A.3d 903, 913 (Pa. 2021). “The object of all interpretation

and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the

General Assembly.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). “The plain language of the statute

is the best indicator of the legislature’s intent. To ascertain the plain meaning,

we consider the operative statutory language in context and give words and

phrases    their   common       and    approved   usage.”   Commonwealth       v.

Chesapeake Energy Corp., 247 A.3d 934, 942 (Pa. 2021).

       Further, we must give effect and ascribe meaning to each word and

provision chosen by our legislature, assuming none is mere surplusage. See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717, 734 (Pa. 2020) (“Some

meaning must be ascribed to every word in a statute . . . and there is a

____________________________________________

5 Appellants are both represented by the Allegheny County Office of the Public

Defender and raise the same appellate issue, resulting in briefs with nearly
identical argument sections. We provide separate citations for each case
where the briefs differ. A citation without designation of an Appellant indicates
that the material is on the same page in both briefs. We also note that
citations to the parties’ briefs submitted after we granted panel
reconsideration are designated as such, with other citations, such as the
above, referring to their initial briefs.

                                           -7-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

presumption that disfavors interpreting language as mere surplusage.”); 1

Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (“Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect

to all its provisions.”). Finally, “we are to assume that the General Assembly

does not intend an absurd result to flow from the construction of any statute.”

Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185, 194 (Pa. 2005).

         A.      Criminal Liability for Failure to Comply with Subchapter I’s
                 Reporting Requirements

         Mindful of the above principles, we turn to the legislative enactments at

issue.     The criminal statute underlying Appellants’ convictions provides as

follows:

         An individual who is subject to registration under [§ 55](a), (a.1)
         or (b) (relating to registration) or who was subject to registration
         under former 42 Pa.C.S. § 9793 (relating to registration of certain
         offenders for ten years) commits an offense if the individual
         knowingly fails to:

              (1) register with the Pennsylvania State Police as required
              under § [56] (relating to registration procedures and
              applicability);

              (2) verify the individual’s residence or be photographed as
              required under § [60] (relating to verification of residence); or

              (3) provide accurate information when registering under § [56]
              or verifying a residence under § [60].

18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.2(a).

         Thus, in order to convict Appellants for violating § 4915.2, the

Commonwealth was required to prove                 three elements, namely that

                                          -8-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

Appellants: (1) were subject to registration under § 556 and (2) knowingly

(3) either failed to follow a registration procedure specified in § 56 or § 60 or

gave inaccurate information when they did follow the procedure. Appellants

do not dispute that the Commonwealth established the second and third

elements of § 4915.2(a). Their contention is that § 55 did not subject them

to registration. Accordingly, we examine that provision of Subchapter I.

       B.     Subchapter I’s Requirements

       By way of background, Subchapter I of SORNA was enacted in 2018 to

prescribe registration requirements for sexual offenders who, because they

committed their offenses before December 20, 2012, could not be subject to

the punitive requirements of the original version of SORNA that is now codified

in Subchapter H.7 Within Subchapter I, § 54 (“Applicability”) indicates who

must register, § 55 (“Registration”) sets forth the offenses that trigger a

reporting requirement, and § 56 (“Procedures and applicability”) details the

____________________________________________

6 Since the former sex-offender law, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9793, was
repealed in 2000, before either Crenshaw or McBride began residing in
Pennsylvania, it cannot be the basis for the first element of § 4915.2 in these
cases.

7 See Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602, 628 (Pa. 2020) (Wecht,

J., concurring and dissenting) (explaining that, after our High Court ruled that
retroactive application of SORNA constituted an ex post facto violation, the
General Assembly “bifurcated SORNA within the Sentencing Code into two
distinct subchapters: Subchapter H and Subchapter I. Subchapter H governs
offenders whose triggering crimes were committed on or after December 20,
2012. Subchapter I applies retroactively to those whose offenses occurred
before that date.” (footnote omitted)).

                                           -9-
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

timing and length of registration. All three statutes contain provisions specific

to individuals whose offenses were committed outside of this Commonwealth.

      In pertinent part, § 54 includes the following identification of individuals

who must register:

      An individual who was convicted of an offense similar to an offense
      set forth in [§ 55] under the laws of . . . another state . . . and
      who, as of February 21, 2018, has not completed registration
      requirements. The period of registration shall be as set forth in
      [§ 56](b)(4) (relating to registration procedures and applicability)
      less any credit for time spent on a sexual offender registry of . . .
      another state . . . or with the Pennsylvania State Police prior to
      February 21, 2018.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.54(a)(4). In turn, § 55 provides as follows in relevant part:

      (a) Ten-year registration.--Except as provided under
      subsection (a.1) . . . , the following individuals shall be required
      to register with the Pennsylvania State Police for a period of 10
      years:

         (1)(i)(A) Individuals convicted within this Commonwealth of
            any of the following offenses committed on or after April 22,
            1996, but before December 20, 2012:

                  ....

               18 Pa.C.S. § 3126 (relating to indecent assault) where
               the offense is graded as a misdemeanor of the first
               degree or higher.

                  ....

         (2) Individuals convicted of an attempt, conspiracy or
         solicitation to commit any of the offenses under paragraph
         (1)(i) or (ii)[.]

         (3) Individuals who currently have a residence in this
         Commonwealth who have been convicted of offenses similar to
         the crimes cited in paragraphs (1)(i) or (ii) and (2) under the
         laws of . . . another state[.] . . .

                                     - 10 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

       (a.1) Exception to 10-year registration.—[Unless a lifetime
       registrant as indicated in (b)8], an individual considered to be an
       offender under [§ 56](b) (relating to registration procedures and
       applicability) shall be required to register with the Pennsylvania
       State Police for a period less than life, the duration of which is to
       be determined under [§§ 54] (relating to applicability) and
       [56](b).

42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55.

       Therefore, pertinent to these appeals, § 55 stipulates that people who,

in a different jurisdiction, committed or attempted to commit offenses similar

to those enumerated in § 55(a) are generally subject to a ten-year registration

requirement, but if they are classified as an offender under § 56(b), the

duration of their registration is established by §§ 54 and 56(b).

       As reproduced above, § 54 requires individuals convicted of an offense

similar to one enumerated in § 55 to register for the period indicated by

§ 56(b). Pursuant to § 56(b), a person who lives, works, or goes to school in

Pennsylvania must register here if previously “convicted of or sentenced by a

court or court martialed for a sexually violent offense or a similar offense

under the laws of . . . another state . . . , or who was required to register

____________________________________________

8 Subsection (b) of § 55 describes individuals who are subject to lifetime
registration, such as SVPs and people convicted of rape, aggravated indecent
assault, or incest with a victim under the age of thirteen. The Commonwealth
did not advocate in the trial court or in this Court that Appellants are subject
to registration pursuant to § 55(b), and we have found nothing in the certified
record to suggest that Appellants are subject to lifetime registration pursuant
to that subsection. Hence, we focus our analysis upon subsections (a) and
(a.1).

                                          - 11 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

under a sexual offender statute in the jurisdiction where convicted, sentenced,

or court martialed[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.56(b)(4).9 The statute goes on to

identify different subsets of such out-of-state offenders and mandates their

compliance with certain portions of Subchapter I as follows:

       (i) If the individual has been classified as a sexually violent
       predator as defined in [§ 53] or determined under the laws of the
       other jurisdiction or by reason of court martial to be subject to
       active notification and lifetime registration on the basis of a
       statutorily authorized administrative or judicial decision or on the
       basis of a statute or administrative rule requiring active
       notification and lifetime registration based solely on the offense
       for which the individual was convicted, sentenced or court
       martialed, the individual shall, notwithstanding [§ 5310], be
       considered a sexually violent predator and subject to lifetime
       registration under [§ 55](b). . . .

       (ii) Except as provided in subparagraphs (i) and (iv), if the
       individual has been convicted or sentenced by a court or court
       martialed for an offense listed in [§ 55](b) or an equivalent
       offense, the individual shall, notwithstanding [§ 5311], be
____________________________________________

9 Subsection (4) is the only substantive provision of § 56(b), as subsections

(1) through (3) are reserved.

10 The definition of “sexually violent predator” in § 53 speaks to the individual

having been determined to have a mental abnormality or personality disorder
that makes him likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.
Subsection (i) of § 56(b)(4) expands that definition to include persons who
were subject to active notification and lifetime registration based solely upon
the offense.

11 The term “offender” is defined in § 53 as follows: “Subject to [§ 75]
(relating to construction of subchapter), an individual required to register
under [§ 55](a), (b)(1) or (2) (relating to registration). The rules for
construing Subchapter I contained in § 75 indicate that nothing in the
subchapter may be understood to relieve an individual from the duty to
register if the person committed a sexually violent offense here or elsewhere,
regardless of whether the offense was designated as a sexually violent one,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 12 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

       considered an offender and be subject to lifetime registration
       under [§ 55](b). . . .

       (iii) Except as provided in subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iv) and (v), if
       the individual has been convicted or sentenced by a court or court
       martialed for an offense listed in [§ 55](a) or an equivalent
       offense, the individual shall be, notwithstanding [§ 53],
       considered an offender and subject to registration under this
       subchapter. . . .

       (iv) Except as provided in subparagraph (i) and notwithstanding
       subparagraph (v), if the individual is subject to active notification
       in the other jurisdiction or subject to active notification by reason
       of court martial, the individual shall, notwithstanding [§ 53], be
       considered an offender[.] . . .

       (v) Except as provided in subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), if
       the individual is subject to passive notification in the other
       jurisdiction or subject to passive notification by reason of court
       martial, the individual shall, notwithstanding [§ 53], be considered
       an offender and subject to this section and [§ 60 (relating to
       verification of residence)12] and [§ 63](c)(2) [(regarding
       information about offenders posted on an internet website)]. The
       individual shall be subject to this subchapter for a period of time
       equal to the time for which the individual was required to register
       in the other jurisdiction or required to register by reason of court
       martial, less any credit due to the individual as a result of prior
       compliance with registration requirements.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.56(b)(4).

____________________________________________

or if the person was required to register under a prior version of Megan’s Law,
or would have been so required had our Supreme Court not struck down the
2004 version in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). See
42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.75(a).

12 Relevant to the cases sub judice, §§ 56 and 60 require out-of-state
offenders to inform PSP within three business days of a change in residence,
employment, or enrollment as a student, and to appear annually at a PSP-
approved registration site. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.56(a)(2), 9799.60(b).

                                          - 13 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

      The term “active notification” utilized in § 56(b)(4)(i) and (iv) is defined

as “[n]otification in accordance with [§ 62] (relating to other notification) or

a process whereby law enforcement, pursuant to the laws of . . . another state

. . . notifies persons in the community in which the individual resides, including

a person identified in [§62](b), of the residence, employment or school

location of the individual.”   42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.53.      By contrast, “passive

notification,” included in § 56(b)(4)(v), is defined as follows:

      Notification in accordance with [§ 63] (relating to information
      made available on Internet and electronic notification) or a
      process whereby persons, under the laws of . . . another state . . .
      are able to access information pertaining to an individual as a
      result of the individual having been convicted or sentenced
      by a court for an offense similar to an offense listed in
      [§ 55] (relating to registration).

42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.53 (emphasis added).

      It is undisputed that Appellants’ convictions did not trigger active

notification in North Carolina.    Rather, as detailed above, their convictions

obligated them to register in North Carolina for thirty years upon their release

from confinement and resulted in their registration information being made

available for public inspection.    See N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.6(4)(a), (5); 14-

208.7(a); 14-208.10. Further, as we indicated above, § 55(b) is not pertinent

to these appeals because Appellants were not determined to be SVPs or

otherwise subject to lifetime registration.

      Therefore, the only portions of § 56(b)(4) that could apply to Appellants

to impose a registration duty are either subsection (iii), which requires an

                                      - 14 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

extra-jurisdictional conviction of an offense “equivalent” to one enumerated

in § 55(a), or subsection (v), which applies if they were subject to passive

notification in North Carolina.          Regarding the latter subsection, by the

statutory definition of the term, Appellants were subject to passive notification

in North Carolina only if members of the public had access to their registration

information “as a result of . . . having been convicted or sentenced by a court

for an offense similar to an offense listed in [§ 55.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.53.

Thus, unless the indecent liberties offense is equivalent or similar to an offense

listed in § 55, § 56(b)(4) did not create a registration obligation.13

       The Commonwealth, relying upon our sister Court’s decision in Rivera

v. Pennsylvania State Police, 255 A.3d 677 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2021), argues that

all individuals who had incomplete registration requirements in other

jurisdictions, regardless of similarity of offenses, are required to register in

Pennsylvania because § 56(b)(4) indicates that “Pennsylvania extends full

faith and credit to out-of-state registration schemes.” Commonwealth’s panel

reconsideration brief at 8 (quoting Rivera, supra at 683). We disagree.

____________________________________________

13  We observe that the definition of passive notification contained in the
version of Megan’s Law enacted prior to the 2012 version of SORNA, which
was purportedly in effect when Crenshaw first registered in Pennsylvania,
utilized the language, including the similarity requirement, that appears in its
definition in Subchapter I. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9792 (expired December 20,
2012). Hence, § 75’s rules of construction do not serve to expand § 63’s
definition of passive notification or the reach of § 56(b)(4)(v) insofar as it
applies to individuals subject to passive notification in the state where the
person was convicted.

                                          - 15 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

      First, Rivera involved a New York rape conviction that subjected the

offender to lifetime registration in that jurisdiction, and the offender claimed

he no longer had any duty to register because he had obtained an order from

a Pennsylvania court indicating that he no longer had a duty to register in light

of our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189

(Pa. 2017). Hence, the Rivera Court was not called upon to examine the

similarity of the rape statutes in New York and Pennsylvania. Second, since

we are not bound by decisions of the Commonwealth Court, it is the plain

language of Subchapter I that dictates our interpretation of it. As detailed

above, if our legislature intended to mandate registration for all Pennsylvania

residents subject to passive notification in another jurisdiction regardless of

the similarity of the offense to an enumerated Pennsylvania offense, it would

have omitted the similarity element from the passive notification definition as

it did with the definition of active notification. It did not. Therefore, in order

for § 56(b)(4)(v) to impose a duty on Appellants to register, their North

Carolina convictions that trigged notification in that jurisdiction must be

similar to an enumerated § 55 offense.

      In sum, the import of the statutes at issue is as follows. If Appellants’

convictions for taking indecent liberties with children are “similar to” any

offenses enumerated in § 55(a)(1) or (2), then § 55(a)(3) required them to

register in Pennsylvania for ten years. If the information about Appellants

that was available to the public in North Carolina by the above-described

                                     - 16 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

passive means resulted from those “similar” convictions, then § 55(a.1)

extended the duration of the registration to the thirty years imposed by North

Carolina law.14     However, if taking indecent liberties with children is not

“similar to” or “an equivalent” of any offense included in § 55(a)(1) or (2),

then Appellants had no duty to register in Pennsylvania under § 55, and their

§ 4915.2 criminal convictions for failing to register are invalid. Consequently,

resolution of these appeals requires us to determine whether such similarity

exists.

III. Similarity of Offenses

       A.     The Categorical Approach to Comparing Statutes

       In A.L., our Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a court martial

should be compared with a Pennsylvania offense for purposes of registration

under Subchapter H of SORNA. In so doing, the Court examined how this

____________________________________________

14 Appellants argue that the use of “is” in § 56(b)(4)(v) means that they could

not be deemed offenders by virtue of that provision because they were “not
subject to passive registration in North Carolina” after they left that state and
began residing in Pennsylvania. See Crenshaw’s brief at 30; McBride’s brief
at 31. We first note that § 56(b)(4)(v) references passive notification, not
passive registration. Moreover, as the Commonwealth observes, Appellants
did not raise this as a basis for dismissal in the trial court, they do not cite on
appeal any provision of North Carolina law that suggests that the notification
connected with their thirty-year registration ceased when they left the state,
and, in any event, both Appellants still have entries on the North Carolina
passive notification website on which their information is included. See
Commonwealth’s           brief      (Crenshaw)          at       10-12      (citing
https://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov); Commonwealth’s brief (McBride) at 11-12
(same). Consequently, we reject Appellants’ contention that their absence
from North Carolina removed them from the ambit of § 56(b)(4)(v).

                                          - 17 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

Court and the Commonwealth Court had undertaken offense comparisons in

other contexts, such as a person’s disqualification from obtaining a

commercial driver’s license or possessing a firearm, or the applicability of

sentencing enhancements. A.L., supra at 1232-34. The Court explained:

      [G]auging offense similarity or equivalency has generally been
      accomplished by comparing the elements of the out-of-state
      offense with those of the in-state offense. If the elements are the
      same, or if the offense of conviction is narrower than the reference
      offense – meaning it captures a subset of the conduct of the
      reference offense – the two are comparable. If, however, the
      offense of conviction defines the crime in terms of alternative
      elements, the question becomes whether the offense of conviction
      was based on the same elements as defined under the
      Pennsylvania statute. . . . This approach to comparing offenses
      ensures that, to count as a predicate, the out-of-state conviction
      signifies the individual was found guilty in that jurisdiction of every
      element of the Pennsylvania offense.

Id. at 1233 (cleaned up).

      The A.L. Court detailed that this categorical approach has been

endorsed by the United States Supreme Court and is often applied in relation

to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), which establishes sentencing

enhancements for felons with certain prior, predicate convictions that usually

occurred at the state level. Our High Court described as follows the process

of comparing the generic ACCA reference offense with the prior state offenses:

            To evaluate whether a prior state conviction counts as an
      ACCA predicate, the Supreme Court compares the elements of the
      generic crime with the elements under state law, a method it
      refers to as the categorical approach. The sentencing court does
      not focus on the particular facts underlying the predicate
      conviction as to do so could entail an elaborate factfinding process
      that would be impractical, including where the conviction was
      based on a guilty plea. The Court has articulated three reasons

                                      - 18 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

      for choosing this approach:      Congress made the sentence
      enhancement to depend on convictions not actions; any effort at
      fact-finding for sentencing purposes would be problematic under
      the Sixth Amendment; and daunting difficulties and inequities
      would arise from a sentencing court’s effort at belated fact-finding
      based on aged documents, especially when their content is subject
      to interpretation.

             With that said, the Supreme Court has also consistently
      recognized that some state offenses are defined by a divisible
      statute, meaning the statute gives alternative elements, usually
      phrased in the disjunctive, that could make up the offense. In
      such cases, the Court has approved what it calls the modified
      categorical approach, allowing the sentencing court to consult a
      limited class of documents from the conviction record, such as
      indictments and jury instructions, to determine the alternative
      element, and thus, the alternative crime, of which the defendant
      was previously found guilty. Assuming the sentencing court can,
      in fact, determine from that limited set of documents the specific
      alternative crime of which the defendant was convicted, the court
      can then do what the categorical approach demands: compare the
      elements of the crime of conviction (including the alternative
      element used in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.
      While this was first characterized as an exception to the
      categorical approach, the Court later clarified it was not an
      exception but a tool because it retains the categorical approach’s
      central feature: a focus on the elements, rather than the facts, of
      a crime.

Id. at 1234–35 (cleaned up).

      In order “to remove guesswork, inconsistency, and ad hoc agency

decision-making, to promote the legislative focus on prior convictions rather

than prior actions,” and also “to foreclose the type of daunting difficulties and

potential unfairness [that] would arise if a reviewing entity years later were

to sift through voluminous aged documents to ascertain exactly what the

SORNA registrant did (as opposed to what he was convicted of),” the A.L.

Court held that the categorial approach “is to be applied when ascertaining

                                     - 19 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

whether a prior extra-jurisdictional offense is ‘comparable’ or ‘equivalent’

under SORNA Subchapter H.” Id. at 137-38 (cleaned up).

      While the A.L. Court specifically resolved the issue of determining

whether an offense is “comparable” or “equivalent” for purposes of Subchapter

H, in examining prior Pennsylvania law, it observed that our courts have been

called upon to compare offenses in a variety of circumstances, noting that,

“[t]o express the concept of similarity in these arenas, the legislative body

has used different adjectives such as ‘equivalent,’ ‘similar,’ ‘essentially

similar,’ ‘comparable,’ and ‘substantially the same’” without defining the

terms. Id. at 1236. As the term “similar” is likewise not defined in Subchapter

I, the same risks of inconsistency and guesswork are plainly implicated here

as those that compelled the A.L. Court to adopt the categorical approach in

applying Subchapter H. Further, while the Commonwealth disputes whether

a similarity of offenses is necessary, an issue we resolved against it supra, it

does not contest that A.L. now dictates the nature of the similarity analysis

for purposes of applying Subchapter I.

      Accordingly, our task is to apply the categorical approach to determine

whether the elements of the North Carolina offense for which Appellants were

convicted are the same as, or narrower than, an offense enumerated in § 55.

If not, we consider whether the North Carolina offense is divisible and the

limited class of permissible documents reveals that Appellants were convicted

pursuant to the alternative element that is wholly subsumed within a § 55

                                     - 20 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

offense. If either of those comparisons reveals that Appellants’ North Carolina

convictions stemmed from an offense similar to one enumerated in § 55, then

Appellants were required to register pursuant to Subchapter I, and they are

entitled to no relief in these appeals.        Otherwise, their convictions and

sentences are invalid. Therefore, we examine the offenses at issue.

      B.      Taking Indecent Liberties with Children

      The North Carolina criminal statute underlying Appellants’ convictions

provides as follows:

      A person is guilty of taking indecent liberties with children if, being
      16 years of age or more and at least five years older than the child
      in question, he either:

           (1) Willfully takes or attempts to take any immoral, improper,
           or indecent liberties with any child of either sex under the age
           of 16 years for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual
           desire; or

           (2) Willfully commits or attempts to commit any lewd or
           lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member of
           the body of any child of either sex under the age of 16 years.

N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a). Hence, the elements of the crime are:

      (1) the defendant was at least 16 years of age, and more than
      five years older than the victim, (2) the victim was under 16 years
      of age at the time the alleged act or attempted act occurred, and
      (3) the defendant willfully took or attempted to take an immoral,
      improper, or indecent liberty with the victim for the purpose of
      arousing or gratifying sexual desire.

State v. McClees, 424 S.E.2d 687, 689 (N.C.App. 1993).

      North Carolina courts have explained that “indecent liberties” are “such

liberties as the common sense of society would regard as indecent and

                                      - 21 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

improper.” State v. Every, 578 S.E.2d 642, 647 (N.C.App. 2003) (cleaned

up). “Neither a completed sex act nor an offensive touching of the victim [is]

required to violate the statute.”       State v. McClary, 679 S.E.2d 414, 418

(N.C.App. 2009). The broader protections of children contemplated by the

statute    criminalize   such   acts   as    having   sexually   explicit   telephone

conversations    with    a   child   while   masturbating,   see    Every,    supra;

“photographing an unclothed child in a sexually suggestive position,

masturbating in front of a child, . . . secretly videotaping a child who was

undressing,” id. at 648 (citations omitted, collecting cases); sitting on a log

twenty yards away from children on the opposite side of a creek engaging in

the lewd act of masturbation and inviting the children to imitate him, see

State v. Strickland, 335 S.E.2d 74, 76 (N.C.App. 1985); and handing a child

“a letter containing sexually graphic language for the purpose of soliciting

sexual intercourse and oral sex.” McClary, supra at 418.

      C.     Indecent Assault

      The Commonwealth and trial court proffered Pennsylvania’s indecent

assault statute as the enumerated offense to which Appellants’ convictions

were similar. That statute provides as follows as pertains to the issues in

these appeals:

      A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent
      contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have
      indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the
      complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces
      for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the
      complainant and:

                                        - 22 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

            ....

         (7) the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or

         (8) the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person
         is four or more years older than the complainant and the
         complainant and the person are not married to each other.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a).

      Indecent contact is defined as “[a]ny touching of the sexual or other

intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual

desire, in any person.”   18 Pa.C.S. § 3101.   Intimate parts are not solely

sexual organs, but any “body part that is personal and private, and which the

person ordinarily allows to be touched only by people with whom the person

has a close personal relationship, and one which is commonly associated with

sexual relations or intimacy.” Commonwealth v. Gamby, 283 A.3d 298,

313–14 (Pa. 2022) (holding the neck is an intimate body part).

      As indicated above, Subchapter I requires registration following

conviction for committing an indecent assault, or attempting to do so, only if

it is graded as a first-degree misdemeanor or higher.           See 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 9799.55(a)(1)(i)(A). The grading portion of the indecent assault statute

states the following:

      Indecent assault shall be graded as follows:

         (1) An offense under [18 Pa.C.S. § 3126](a)(1) or (8) is a
         misdemeanor of the second degree.

            ....

                                    - 23 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

            (3) An offense under [18 Pa.C.S. § 3126](a)(7) is a
            misdemeanor of the first degree unless any of the following
            apply, in which case it is a felony of the third degree:

              (i) It is a second or subsequent offense.

              (ii) There has been a course of conduct of indecent assault
              by the person.

              (iii) The indecent assault was committed by touching the
              complainant’s sexual or intimate parts with sexual or
              intimate parts of the person.

              (iv) The indecent assault is committed by touching the
              person’s sexual or intimate parts with the complainant’s
              sexual or intimate parts.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(b).

       Hence, for indecent assault to trigger Subchapter I registration, not only

must there be physical touching of intimate parts for purposes of arousing

sexual desire, but the complainant also had to be under the age of thirteen.

       D.     Analysis

       Upon thorough examination, it is plain that the North Carolina offense

of taking indecent liberties with children is not similar to indecent assault

under the categorical approach.15 First, North Carolina appellate courts have

____________________________________________

15 The trial court, which issued its ruling before our Supreme Court decided

A.L., held that it was “clear to the [court] that while the North Carolina offense
of taking indecent liberties with a child and the Pennsylvania offense of
indecent assault are not identical, they are sufficiently similar to require
[Appellants] to register under SORNA Subchapter I.” Trial Court Opinion
(McBride), 3/9/22, at 8; Trial Court Opinion (Crenshaw), 3/22/22, at 7. The
trial court alternatively opined that, even if the offenses were not similar,
Appellants were required to register pursuant to the reciprocity provision of
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 24 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

held that the disjunctive subsections of § 14-202.1(a) do not identify separate

offenses, but rather state “two alternative means of proving one element of

the offense of indecent liberties.”            State v. Jones, 616 S.E.2d 15, 20

(N.C.App. 2005). In other words, it is not a particular set of acts the North

Carolina legislature sought to criminalize with § 14-202.1, but rather the

actor’s purpose in seeking sexual gratification by exposing a child of fifteen or

younger to lewdness and indecency:

       [T]he evil the legislature sought to prevent in this context was the
       defendant’s performance of any immoral, improper, or indecent
       act in the presence of a child for the purpose of arousing or
       gratifying sexual desire. Defendant’s purpose for committing such
       act is the gravamen of this offense; the particular act performed
       is immaterial.

Id. at 20 (cleaned up).

       As Appellants argue, and the Commonwealth concedes, taking indecent

liberties is broader than indecent assault in that it does not require any

physical contact.      See Appellant’s panel reconsideration brief at 10-11;

Commonwealth’s panel reconsideration brief at 5.              Thus, an individual

____________________________________________

§ 56. See Trial Court Opinion (McBride), 3/9/22, at 8; Trial Court Opinion
(Crenshaw), 3/22/22, at 7. Since the trial court did not apply the categorical
approach of comparing the statutes, and as we discussed above,
§ 56(b)(4)(v)’s reference to unexpired passive notification in another
jurisdiction incorporates a similarity requirement, the trial court’s alternative
analyses cannot support its ruling. Instead, our task is to determine whether
the trial court’s decision can be sustained on another basis. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Ani, 293 A.3d 704, 729 (Pa.Super. 2023) “As an
appellate court, we may affirm on any legal basis supported by the certified
record.” (cleaned up)).

                                          - 25 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

convicted of taking indecent liberties in North Carolina offense was not

necessarily found guilty of every element of the indecent assault offense

enumerated in Subchapter I offense. Consequently, applying the categorical

approach, the offenses are not similar.

     Second, as the Commonwealth was likewise compelled to admit, even if

we disregarded the North Carolina court’s holding that the statute was not a

divisible statute identifying separate offenses, none of the limited class of

documents that are acceptably referenced indicates whether Appellants were

specifically convicted of violating N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a)(2), which requires

an act upon the body of the complainant similar to the physical contact

required by Pennsylvania’s indecent assault statute. See Commonwealth’s

panel reconsideration brief at 6. Rather, the certified copies of Appellants’

convictions admitted at their respective trials did not specify a particular

subsection of § 14-202.1(1)(a), but referenced § 14-202.1 generally. See

Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 (Crenshaw); Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 (McBride).

     Furthermore, as we noted above, regardless of the conduct committed,

the indecent liberties offense can be established if the victim is thirteen,

fourteen, or fifteen years old while, to be an enumerated offense pursuant to

§ 55(a)(1), the complainant had to be twelve or younger. Hence, to determine

whether Appellants’ convictions were based upon guilt of every element

required to establish the Pennsylvania crime, we would have to ascertain what

                                    - 26 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

Appellants did rather than of what they were convicted. Our High Court’s A.L.

decision prohibits such a similarity analysis.

      For these reasons, we are constrained to hold that Appellants’ North

Carolina convictions for taking indecent liberties with children were not similar

to convictions for indecent assault for purposes of Subchapter I of SORNA.

Accord A.L., supra at 1239-40 (holding statute which included a broader

mens rea element than its Pennsylvania counterpart was not comparable).

Consequently, Appellants had no obligation to register in accordance with

§§ 56 or 60 and could not validly be convicted pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.2

for failing to do so.

IV.   Conclusion

      The North Carolina statute under which Appellants were convicted is

broader than the § 55 offense that the Commonwealth proffered as a similar

Pennsylvania offense. As such, the Commonwealth failed to establish that

Appellants’ out-of-state convictions triggered a duty for them to register in

Pennsylvania pursuant to Subchapter I. Since Appellants were not individuals

subject to registration under § 55, they did not commit the charged crimes by

failing to register.    As a result, their convictions in the instant cases are

unsound. Therefore, we vacate Appellants’ judgments of sentence, reverse

their convictions, and discharge them.

      Judgments of sentence vacated.           Convictions reversed.   Appellants

discharged.

                                      - 27 -
J-A02020-23
J-A02030-23

 DATE: 12/1/2023

                   - 28 -