Court Opinion

ID: 9880775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 16:08:26.560994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:31.164717
License: Public Domain

J-S27021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 TAKANII DANTE BEATTY                     :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1426 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 19, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0001863-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                      FILED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

      Takanii Dante Beatty appeals the August 19, 2022 judgment of sentence

imposing an aggregate term of seven and one-half to fifteen years of

imprisonment after he pled guilty to statutory sexual assault graded as a first-

degree felony and promoting prostitution. For the reasons explained infra,

consistent with our High Court’s guidance in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri,

232 A.3d 567, 584 (Pa. 2020), we remand to the trial court for the

development of a full factual record concerning Appellant’s constitutional

challenges implicating the legality of his sentence.

      On December 28, 2019, Appellant and other adults supplied thirteen-

year-old E.C. with alcohol and gave her $120 to perform various sexual acts.

In pleading guilty, Appellant specifically stipulated “that on the 28th of

December of 2019[, he] engaged in sexual intercourse with . . . E.C.,” who

was under the age of sixteen, more than eleven years younger than him, and
J-S27021-23

not his spouse.    See Guilty Plea Colloquy, 3/15/22, at 3.          Appellant also

conceded that, on the same date, he intentionally caused E.C., “to become or

remain a prostitute by encouraging her to perform sexual acts on both [him]

and other people[.]” Id. at 4. The trial court accepted the open plea and

imposed the sentence indicated above.             Appellant was found not to be a

sexually violent predator. Nevertheless, as a result of his statutory assault

conviction, he is classified as a Tier III offender, subject to lifetime registration

pursuant to Subchapter H of Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and

Notification Act (“SORNA”) (“Revised Subchapter H”).              See 42 Pa.C.S.

§§ 9799.14(d)(3) and 9799.15(a)(3) (categorizing that the commission of

“statutory sexual assault” graded as a felony of the first degree requires

registration for “the life of the individual”).

      This timely appeal followed the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence

motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his aggregate sentence.

Appellant’s concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) raised

for the first time that Revised Subchapter H is unconstitutional because it,

inter alia, employs an “irrebuttable presumption . . . that sex offenders are

uniquely dangerous and likely to reoffend[,] . . . violates Alleyne v. United

States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)[,] and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

                                        -2-
J-S27021-23

(2000)[,] . . . and inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.”1 Concise Statement,

10/27/22, at unnumbered 2.

       Appellant presents a single question for our review:

       Is [Appellant] entitled to remand for an evidentiary hearing on
       whether the imposition of the requirements of Subchapter H of
       [SORNA] violates Alleyne v. United States and Apprendi v.
       New Jersey and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
       violation of The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions?

Appellant’s brief at 4. The Commonwealth agrees that Appellant is entitled to

a remand for an evidentiary hearing to develop the necessary factual record

to support his constitutional challenge to Revised Subchapter H.            See

Commonwealth’s brief at 4.

       In confronting a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, our

standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa.Super. 2014).                 In

Torsilieri, our Supreme Court outlined the significant burden borne by an

individual seeking to invalidate a statutory scheme on constitutional grounds:

       In addressing constitutional challenges to legislative enactments,
       we are ever cognizant that “the General Assembly may enact laws
       which impinge on constitutional rights to protect the health,
       safety, and welfare of society,” but also that “any restriction is

____________________________________________

1 In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court noted that our Supreme Court is

currently addressing identical challenges to Revised Subchapter H in
Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, 97 MAP 2022, but it concluded that the
present state of the law supported the continued application of the statute.
See Trial Court Opinion,11/16/22, at 3-4. We observe that on May 23, 2023,
the High Court heard oral argument regarding the constitutionality of Revised
Subchapter H, but to date has not rendered its decision.

                                           -3-
J-S27021-23

      subject to judicial review to protect the constitutional rights of all
      citizens.” In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1, 14 (Pa. 2014). We emphasize
      that “a party challenging a statute must meet the high burden of
      demonstrating that the statute clearly, palpably, and plainly
      violates the Constitution.” Id.

Torsilieri, supra at 575.

      With these principles in mind, we first observe that Appellant’s challenge

to the legality of the lifetime registration requirements imposed on him

pursuant to Revised Subchapter H is not waived due to his failure to raise the

claim in the trial court. Cf. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).         In

Commonwealth v. Thorne, 276 A.3d 1192, 1196-98 (Pa. 2022), our High

Court held that constitutional challenges to Revised Subchapter H, such as

these particular claims which properly implicate the legality of a defendant’s

sentence, cannot be waived.

      The Thorne Court further directed that, where, as here, the issues are

asserted for the first time on appeal, appellants are entitled to remand and an

opportunity to provide supplemental argument and scientific evidence to

support arguments challenging Revised Subchapter H:

      If . . . we were to conclude that Appellant is not entitled to a
      remand . . . or preclude Appellant from offering scientific evidence
      to establish the punitive nature of Revised Subchapter H on
      remand, Appellant would derive absolutely no benefit from our
      holding today. In other words, our ruling today—i.e., that
      constitutional challenges to the lifetime registration requirement
      set forth in Revised Subchapter H implicate the legality of a
      sentence and, therefore, cannot be waived—would have no
      meaning if individuals seeking to challenge Revised Subchapter H
      on constitutional grounds were required to present evidence in

                                      -4-
J-S27021-23

      support thereof during his/her underlying criminal proceedings in
      order to preserve the issue.

Thorne, supra at 1198 n.13.

      Thus, in accordance with Thorne and Torsilieri, we remand this matter

to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity for Appellant

to   supplement   his   arguments   with   scientific   evidence.   See   e.g.

Commonwealth v. Boyd, 287 A.3d 957 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“[W]e remand to

the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the constitutional challenges

to SORNA II, Revised Subchapter H that Appellant has raised before this

Court”); Commonwealth v. Chai, 135 WDA 2018, 2023 WL 4881480, at *2

(Pa.Super. August 1, 2023) (non-precedential decision) (“Here, as in Boyd,

we conclude that a remand is appropriate for the development of the record

on [the appellant’s] legality-of-sentence claims concerning his registration

requirement.”).

      Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/28/2023

                                     -5-