Commonwealth v. Butler
Decision Date | 26 March 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 25 WAP 2018,25 WAP 2018 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Joseph Dean BUTLER, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
We granted discretionary review to determine whether the procedure used to designate certain individuals convicted of sexual offenses as sexually violent predators (SVPs),1 codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3),2 is constitutionally permissible in light of our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz , 640 Pa. 699, 164 A.3d 1189 (2017) ( ). The Superior Court extrapolated from our decision in Muniz to hold the lifetime registration, notification, and counseling requirements (RNC requirements) applicable to SVPs pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.15, 9799.16, 9799.26, 9799.27, and 9799.36 are increased criminal punishment such that the procedure for conducting SVP determinations violates the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).3 For the following reasons, we reverse and hold the RNC requirements do not constitute criminal punishment and therefore the procedure for designating individuals as SVPs under Section 9799.24(e)(3) is not subject to the requirements of Apprendi and Alleyne and remains constitutionally permissible.
On July 27, 2015, appellee Joseph Dean Butler pled guilty to statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors4 after engaging in sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old female victim on approximately 50 occasions between October 1, 2013 and June 6, 2014. N.T. 7/27/2015 at 2. Due to his conviction for corruption of minors, SORNA required appellee to undergo an assessment by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board (SOAB) to evaluate whether he should be designated as an SVP and the court deferred sentencing until the assessment was completed. Id. at 12-13. Following the procedures outlined in Section 9799.24(e), the trial court conducted a hearing, found the Commonwealth provided clear and convincing evidence that appellee was an SVP, and ordered appellee be designated as such. N.T. 5/25/16 at 10-11. The court later sentenced appellee to 12 to 30 months' incarceration followed by 90 months' probation. N.T. 8/4/16 at 8-9. The court subsequently denied appellee's post-sentence motions and he appealed to the Superior Court.
In a divided, published opinion, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court considered, sua sponte , whether the procedure for making SVP determinations under Section 9799.24(e)(3) violated Apprendi and Alleyne . Commonwealth v. Butler , 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2017).5 The panel determined sua sponte review was necessary due to its interpretation of Muniz as indicating appellee's SVP determination exposed him to an increased minimum registration requirement, and thus implicated the legality of his sentence.6 Id. at 1214, citing Commonwealth v. Barnes , 637 Pa. 493, 151 A.3d 121, 127 (2016) (). The panel majority concluded Muniz was dispositive — without conducting any analysis regarding either the differences between the RNC requirements and the requirements at issue in Muniz or the differences between SVPs and other sex offenders. In doing so, the majority stated:
[S]ince our Supreme Court has held that SORNA registration requirements are punitive or a criminal penalty to which individuals are exposed, then under Apprendi and Alleyne , a factual finding, such as whether a defendant has a "mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him or her] likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses[,]" 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12, that increases the length of registration must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the chosen fact-finder. Section 9799.24(e)(3) identifies the trial court as the finder of fact in all instances and specifies clear and convincing evidence as the burden of proof required to designate a convicted defendant as an SVP. Such a statutory scheme in the criminal context cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that [S]ection 9799.24(e)(3) is unconstitutional and Appellant's judgment of sentence, to the extent it required him to register as an SVP for life, was illegal.
The Commonwealth filed a petition for allowance of appeal in this Court and we granted review of the following question: "Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania erred in vacating the trial court's [o]rder finding [appellee] to be [an SVP] by extrapolating the decision in [ Muniz ] to declare SVP hearings and designations unconstitutional under [ Section] 9799.24(e)(3) ?" Commonwealth v. Butler , 647 Pa. 526, 190 A.3d 581 (2019) (per curiam ).
Briefly, the parties dispute whether the Muniz Court's holding regarding criminal punishment automatically applies to all individuals falling under the purview of SORNA, including SVPs, or whether a separate analysis of the RNC requirements must be conducted with a specific focus on SVPs. The parties also dispute whether the judicial fact-finding required under Section 9799.24(e)(3) remains constitutionally permissible under Oregon v. Ice , 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009),7 even if we find the RNC requirements constitute criminal punishment. As we consider the arguments of the parties in greater detail below, Muniz , 164 A.3d at 1195 (internal citation omitted).
We first summarize the reasoning in Williams II and Muniz as the analyses employed in those cases will frame our discussion of whether the RNC requirements constitute punishment. Since we thoroughly summarized Williams II in Muniz , we reproduce that summation here:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Lacombe, No. 35 MAP 2018
...same framework.We recently summarized the Muniz Court's analysis regarding the punitive nature of SORNA in Commonwealth v. Butler , ––– Pa. ––––, 226 A.3d 972 (2020) ( Butler II ): In Muniz , we ... first determined "the General Assembly's intent in enacting SORNA apparently was twofold: to......
-
Commonwealth v. Torsilieri
...and real recidivism concerns, this Court should be wary of ... contrary conclusions." Id . at 1215. See also Commonwealth v. Butler , ––– Pa. ––––, 226 A.3d 972, 991 (2020) (describing an "apparent conflict" regarding the recidivism rate among sexual offenders and whether registries are eff......
- Commonwealth v. Martz
-
T.S. v. Pa. State Police
...response to Muniz , the General Assembly enacted Act 29. As the Supreme Court recently explained in Commonwealth v. Butler , ––– Pa.––––, 226 A.3d 972, 981 n.11, No. 25 WAP 2018 (filed March 26, 2020), slip op. at 10 n.11, 2020 WL 1466299 ( Butler II ) , through subchapter I of Act 29, t......