Commonwealth v. Muhammad, No. 1455 MDA 2018
Citation | 241 A.3d 1149 |
Decision Date | 23 October 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 1455 MDA 2018 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Tanisha MUHAMMAD, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Eric Jon Kress Muhlenberg, Public Defender, Reading, for appellant.
Kenneth William Kelecic, Assistant District Attorney, Reading, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant, Tanisha Muhammad, appeals from her judgment of sentence for interference with custody of children, false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, and conspiracy to commit these offenses.1 Based on Appellant's convictions for interference with custody of children ("interference") and conspiracy to interfere with custody of children ("conspiracy"), the trial court ordered Appellant to register as a sexual offender under Revised Subchapter H of the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10 - 9799.42,2 as a Tier I offender. We hold that SORNA is unconstitutional as applied to Appellant, because it creates an irrebuttable presumption that her convictions for interference and conspiracy make her a risk to commit additional sexual offenses. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order directing her to register as a sexual offender. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The trial court summarized the evidence against Appellant as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, 11/13/18, at 3-5 ( )(references to notes of trial testimony).
Following a bench trial, the court found Appellant guilty of the offenses listed above. These appear to be Appellant's first and only criminal offenses. N.T., 7/20/18, at 24 ( ); id. at 34 ( ).
Prior to sentencing, Appellant served the court a memorandum raising a series of constitutional challenges to SORNA, including an argument that SORNA violates Appellant's right to reputation under the Due Process Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution by creating an irrebuttable presumption that she is a high risk to commit another sexual offense. At sentencing, counsel entered this memorandum into the record and argued that SORNA is unconstitutional "as it applies to [Appellant]." N.T., 7/20/18, at 4. The court responded, "[I] am in no position to hold here that [SORNA] is unconstitutional as applied to [Appellant], and I will not do so." Id. at 4-5. Appellant acknowledged filling out a form notifying her of her requirement to register under SORNA for her convictions for interference and conspiracy. Id. at 39-40. This form was admitted into the record.3 The court sentenced Appellant to three to twenty-three months' imprisonment.
Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the court denied, and a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues in this appeal:
We find Appellant's first argument dispositive of this appeal. SORNA declares that "[s]exual offenders pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses and protection of the public from this type of offender is a paramount governmental interest." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.11(a)(4). Appellant contends that both on its face and as applied to her, SORNA violates her right to reputation under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution4 by creating an irrebuttable presumption that she poses a high risk of committing additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Rippey
...object to Appellant's SORNA obligations on the grounds alleged because the case on which Appellant relies, Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 11 241 A.3d 1149 (Pa.Super. 2020), is distinguishable from the instant matter. Unlike Appellant, the defendant in Muhammad was not convicted of a crime involv......
-
Kaur v. Singh
...challenge is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Muhammad , 241 A.3d 1149, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2020). Both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions guarantee the free exercise of religion. Application of Con......
-
In re Cohen
... ... effectively no case precedent in the Commonwealth regarding ... the interplay between the First Amendment and Article ... See, ... e.g., Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 241 A.3d 1149, 1155 (Pa ... Super. 2020) (discussing distinction ... (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2018) (sending of salacious text messages ... and conducting clandestine ... ...
-
R. C. v. Comm'r of Pa. State Police
...Petitioner further argues that this Court should apply the Torsilieri holding in a similar manner as applied in Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 241 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2020),5 in that this Court should find that Act 29 creates an impermissible "stigma" that Petitioner is "a dangerous adult who ......