[J-103A-2019 and J-103B-2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 35 MAP 2018 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Montgomery County Court of : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, v. : at No. CP-46-CR-1445-1997. dated : June 21, 2018 : CLAUDE LACOMBE, : ARGUED: November 20, 2019 : Appellee : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 64 MAP 2018 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of : Montgomery County Court of : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, v. : at No. CP-46-CR-0004935-2013 : dated October 26, 2018. : MICHAEL WITMAYER, : ARGUED: November 20, 2019 : Appellee : OPINION JUSTICE DOUGHERTY1 DECIDED: July 21, 2020 In these consolidated appeals, the Commonwealth challenges orders of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas relieving appellees, Claude Lacombe and Michael Witmayer, of their duty to comply with Subchapter I of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§9799.51-9799.75, based upon 1 The matter was reassigned to this author. the court’s finding Subchapter I, as retroactively applied to appellees, is a punitive and unconstitutional ex post facto law.2 For the reasons set forth below, we now hold this was error, Subchapter I is nonpunitive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. I. Procedural History of the Present Appeals A. Claude Lacombe In 1997, Lacombe was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), sexual assault, indecent assault, official oppression, and unsworn falsification to authorities and sentenced to a term of six to twenty years’ imprisonment. Lacombe was not found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), but was required to comply with the then-applicable version of Megan’s Law for a period of ten years upon his release from prison due to his IDSI conviction; Lacombe was released from prison in April of 2005 and his period of registration would have ended in April of 2015. In the meantime, however, the General Assembly enacted the first version of SORNA, under which Lacombe was designated as a Tier III offender and required to comply with the mandates of the statute for the remainder of his life. 2 The prohibition of ex post facto laws appears in the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 9, which is a limitation on Congress’ authority to pass laws, and in Article I, Section 10, which is a limitation on the power of the states. Article I, Section 9 provides: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” U.S. CONST. art. I, §9. Article I, Section 10 similarly provides: “No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” U.S. CONST. art. I, §10. Pennsylvania’s ex post facto provision is found in Article I, Section 17 of our Constitution, which states that: “No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals