Court Opinion

ID: 9841489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 16:10:52.75398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:10.625437
License: Public Domain

J-S20009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ARTHUR F. GUPTON                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2892 EDA 2023

        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.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY COLINS, J.:                FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

       I am writing separately from my colleagues to state my agreement with

the analysis of Appellant’s claim on the merits. I believe Appellant’s single

issue was not rendered unreviewable by the multiple erroneous references to

the denial of PCRA relief in the brief. The issue briefed on appeal is the

propriety of Appellant’s SVP designation and registration and reporting

requirements under Subchapter I of SORNA, and not any hypothetical PCRA

ruling. The timely-filed notice of appeal refers to the April 20, 2022 judgement

of sentence following the remand hearing, and the Rule 1925(b) Statement

includes the issue briefed, albeit not with ideal clarity.

       Although reviewable, Appellant’s argument is meritless. He asks this

Court to follow the trial court ruling in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, CP-CR-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29040-23

0001570-2016 (Chester Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 23, 2022) (vacated and under

review before the Supreme Court at Docket No. 97 MAP 2022), rather than

our Supreme Court’s directly applicable holdings in Commonwealth v.

Butler, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020) (Butler II), or Commonwealth v.

Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020). Appellant’s suggestion is both

impermissible for an intermediate appellate court, and unpersuasive even in

theory. The scope of the court of common pleas opinion in Torsilieri was

limited to Subchapter H, whereas Appellant comes under Subchapter I. It is

therefore inapplicable to him.

      I agree that the trial court did not err in applying the Supreme Court’s

most recent decisions in Butler II and Lacombe.

                                    -2-