Van Doren v. Mazurkiewicz

Citation695 A.2d 967
PartiesRoy D. VAN DOREN, Jr., Petitioner, v. Joseph F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Ph.D; Title 42 Pa.C.S. Sections 9791 et seq.; Title 37 Pa.C.S. Sections 56.1 et seq.; and, all other matters relating to "Megan's Law" and Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Respondents.
Decision Date12 June 1997
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Roy D. Van Doren, Jr., petitioner, for himself.

Michael L. Harvey, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Harrisburg, for respondent, Attorney General of PA.

Before DOYLE and PELLEGRINI, JJ., and RODGERS, Senior Judge.

DOYLE, Judge.

This case involves preliminary objections filed by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz (collectively, Respondents), the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution-Rockview (SCI-Rockview), in response to the Petition for Review filed by Roy A. Van Doren, Jr., an inmate at SCI-Rockview, which challenges the constitutionality of the registration provisions for sex offenders set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9791-9799.6, commonly known as "Megan's Law." 1

This action was apparently precipitated by a memorandum circulated by Superintendent Mazurkiewicz, which was attached as an exhibit to Van Doren's original Petition for Review, although not attached as an exhibit to his Amended Petition for Review. Apparently, the memorandum circulated by Respondent Mazurkiewicz informed inmates that, in accord with the provisions of Megan's Law,

[A]ny inmate who will be released from this institution and has completed his entire sentence will be notified at least ten (10) days prior to his max date ... that he is required to register under this new law. Any inmate who fails to sign these two (2) registration forms will be committing a felony of the third degree and subsequently will be arrested by the Pennsylvania State Police in violation of this law.

(Exhibit A to Petition for Review at 1.) (Emphasis added.)

According to the averments in Van Doren's Amended Petition for Review, he is currently serving a mandatory ten-year prison sentence at SCI-Rockview, which is scheduled to expire on March 23, 1998, for convictions in Wayne County for the crimes of statutory rape (18 Pa.C.S. § 3122), involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with someone under 16 years of age (18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7), formerly 3123(5)), indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3126), and incest (18 Pa.C.S. § 4302).

On June 3, 1996, Van Doren instituted the present action by filing a Petition for Review, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief and challenging the constitutionality of the registration provisions of Megan's Law. On August 27, 1996, Van Doren filed an Amended Petition for Review, to which the Attorney General and Respondent Mazurkiewicz filed preliminary objections on October 28, 1996, and November 22, 1996, respectively.

Megan's Law essentially provides that those convicted of certain specified crimes must "register" in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. The crimes requiring registration are enumerated in Section 9793(b) of Megan's Law, which provides:

(b) Persons required to register.--

(1) Persons convicted of any of the following offenses that are classified as a felony and involve a victim who is a minor:

18 Pa.C.S. § 2901 (relating to kidnapping) except by a parent.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape).

18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse).

18 Pa.C.S. § 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault).

18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b) (relating to prostitution and related offenses).

18 Pa.C.S. § 5903(a)(3), (4), (5) or (6) (relating to obscene and other sexual materials and performances).

(2) Persons convicted of any of the following offenses regardless of the age of the victim:

18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 [ (relating to rape) ].

18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 [ (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) ].

18 Pa.C.S. § 3125 [ (relating to aggravated indecent assault) ].

18 Pa.C.S. § 3128(a) and (b) (relating to spousal sexual assault).

42 Pa.C.S. § 9793(b)(1)-(2). Offenders required to register under Megan's Law must do so in accordance with Section 9793(a), which pertinently provides:

(a) Registration.--A person convicted of any of the offenses set forth in subsection (b) shall be required to register a current address with the Pennsylvania State Police upon release from incarceration.... The Department of Corrections shall not release the offender until it receives verification from the Pennsylvania State Police that it has received the registration information. Where the offender is scheduled to be released from a state correctional facility due to the expiration of the maximum term of incarceration, the Department of Corrections shall collect the information from the offender no later than ten days prior to the maximum expiration date. The Department of Corrections shall forward the registration information to the Pennsylvania State Police. Where the offender scheduled to be released due to the maximum expiration date refuses to provide the registration information, the Department of Corrections shall notify the Pennsylvania State Police of the failure to provide registration information and of the expected date, time and location of the release of the offender.... The offender shall inform the Pennsylvania State Police within ten days if the offender changes residence.... The period of registration shall be ten years.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9793(a). The registration information is then provided to the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality in which the sex offender will reside. 2

Megan's Law also classifies certain sex offenders as "sexually violent predators," 3 who must register in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795. 4 The critical difference between the two designations is that, in the case of sexual offenders, the registration information is disseminated only to local law enforcement officials, whereas in the case of "sexually violent predators," the registration information is disseminated on a much broader scale pursuant to Section 9798(b):

(b) To whom written notice is provided.--The chief law enforcement officer shall provide written notice, under subsection [9798](a), to the following persons:

(1) Neighbors of the sexually violent predator.

(2) The director of the county children and youth service agency of the county where the sexually violent predator resides.

(3) The superintendent of each school district and the equivalent official for private and parochial schools enrolling students up through grade 12 in the municipality.

(4) The director of each licensed day care center and licensed preschool program in the municipality.

(5) The president of each college, university and community college located within 1,000 feet of a sexually violent predator's address.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9798(b).

There is, therefore, a discernable difference between the mere registration of a "sexual offender" and the registration and broader notification provisions applicable to a "sexually violent predator."

We should first note that, although in his petition for review Van Doren invokes this Court's original jurisdiction pursuant to Section 761 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761, Van Doren ostensibly "appealed" from a "decision" of the Superintendent, which in fact was simply a memorandum circulated to the inmates. 5 To the extent that Van Doren implies that the Superintendent's action in this regard was tantamount to a final appealable order or decision, Van Doren is, of course, incorrect. 6 However, we will consider Van Doren's Petition for Review as a request for declaratory judgment inasmuch as he challenges the constitutional validity of the registration provisions of Megan's law, to which he will inevitably be subject prior to expiration of his prison term on March 23, 1998.

Specifically, in his Amended Petition for Review, Van Doren asserts that requiring him to comply with the registration provisions of Megan's Law constitutes additional punishment and therefore violates the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. It is argued in the Respondents' preliminary objections and brief that Van Doren's action should be dismissed because (1) Van Doren lacks standing because his constitutional challenge to the registration provisions of Megan's Law is not ripe; and (2) Van Doren's petition for review fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

This case appears to be one of first impression in this Commonwealth.

I. STANDING

The Attorney General and Respondent Mazurkiewicz argue that Van Doren lacks standing to bring the present action because he has not asserted a justiciable or ripe claim in light of the fact that "Van Doren has no obligation to provide any registration information until ten days before the expiration of his term, [i.e.], on March 23, 1998." (Brief of Attorney General at 9.)

The ripeness doctrine is a concept of standing premised on the notion that "[j]udicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or imminent, not squandered on problems which are abstract or hypothetical or remote." Western Pennsylvania Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 471 Pa. 347, 361, 370 A.2d 337, 344 (1977) (Roberts, J., dissenting).

Thus, in order to have standing, a party seeking declaratory relief must establish an interest which "must be a direct, substantial and present interest, as contrasted with a remote or speculative interest." Kauffman v. Osser, 441 Pa. 150, 155, 271 A.2d 236, 239 (1970); see also South Whitehall Township v. Department of Transportation, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 217, 475 A.2d 166 (1984). As our Supreme Court stated in Gulnac v. South Butler County School District, 526 Pa. 483, 488, 587 A.2d 699, 701 (1991), "declaratory judgment must not be employed to determine rights in anticipation of events which may never occur ... or as a medium for the rendition of an advisory opinion which may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Dial v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 20, 1999
    ...687 A.2d 1211, 1212 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997).4 There is no ex post facto violation if the legislation is not penal in nature, Van Doren v. Mazurkiewicz, 695 A.2d 967 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Commonwealth v. Kline, 695 A.2d 872 (Pa.Super.1997), alloc. denied, 552 Pa. 694, 716 A.2d 1248 (1998), but is merel......
  • Commonwealth v. Muniz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 19, 2017
    ...(1984). Thus, Appellant is limited to contesting only those aspects of SORNA implicated by his actual convictions. See Van Doren v. Mazurkiewicz , 695 A.2d 967, 972 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (explaining that, although petitioner could challenge registration requirements under a prior sex offen......
  • Com. v. Halye
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 6, 1998
    ...difference between those who are sex offenders and those classified by the court as "sexually violent predators." Van Doren v. Mazurkiewicz, 695 A.2d 967 This Court has had occasion to consider the constitutional validity of the registration provisions of the Act. Commonwealth v. Mountain, ......
  • Doe v. Attorney General
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 17, 1997
    ...Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244, 248-249 (Minn.Ct.App.1995); State v. Costello, 138 N.H. 587, 591, 643 A.2d 531 (1994); Van Doren v. Mazurkiewicz, 695 A.2d 967, 976 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1997); Kitze v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 213, 217, 220, 475 S.E.2d 830 (1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 66,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT