The state Supreme Court has thrown into question the registration of as many as 4,500 sex offenders statewide. The case giving rise to the ruling originated in Cumberland County, and officials there have 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They should file the appeal to gain clarity on two important questions: At what point are sex offenders unjustly punished and to what extent should communities be informed about potentially dangerous people in their midst? Full Editorial
Related posts
-
PA: Bill seeks to close ‘loophole’ for AI-generated child sexual abuse materials
Source: penncapital-star.com 11/10/25 A two-hour state Senate committee hearing explored the use of artificial intelligence to... -
PA: Stuck in 1995 Rally Marks 30 Years of Failed Policies
Source: parsol.org 10/28/25 HARRISBURG, PA – October 28, 2025 – The Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL)... -
PA: Being suspected of child abuse can land you in this Pa. database — even without a conviction
Source: timesleader.com 10/2/25 To protect kids, Pennsylvania maintains a registry of people convicted and suspected of...
What a horrible editorial. I wish it didn’t require FB for commenting, I’d chime in a bit. They threw me a bit in saying PA has 90 days to appeal. I recall someone on here saying PSP was going to start updating their data on August 19 (31 days after decision) if PA didn’t appeal to SCOTUS. Turns out the editorial is right, but a little deceiving.
PA has 30 days to request a Stay from the Justice (Alito) who oversees the Circuit, and has 90 days to file a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101). I think this could create a problem for PA (–pardon me as I wipe away crocodile tears–). Regardless what Alito does, that Stay only affects the Federal question. PA is still bound by the PA SC decision at the State level, which means making all affected citizens whole, and reverting the ML to status quo ante. BTW, someone should ensure PA does *everything* the decision mandates; removing some people from the list is just one element. Anything and everything newly created and/or mandated due to SORNA-PA must be abandoned, destroyed, etc.
If Alito grants a Stay, PA risks getting knocked out of SORNA-US compliance (–rats, those crocodile tears are back–), but as the USSG stated in the Snyder amicus, USAG Sessions could deem them in compliance anyway. If Alito denies a Stay, it’s not quite time to dance on SORNA-US’s grave: the 90-day window for PA to file cert request extends past when SCOTUS returns.
The thing is, PA appealing to SCOTUS about SORNA-US really doesn’t solve anything for them: the Muniz decision still bars PA from enacting mirroring legislation! Honestly, the best outcome for PA appears to be that SORNA-US gets struck down, that way removing any question as to whether PA is sufficiently SORNA-US compliant and thus eligible for full funding. PA SC has really put the other two branches in a no-win situation (–*sigh* more crocodile tears–). But, that’s what happens when you collude with each other and the Feds in an illegal, unconstitutional scheme.
My husband wanted me to you AJ, “Well stated!”
Aj jts beginning..How many of the nay sayers were in here ” it can never happen, the registry will never go away ” Watch it go…
My husband saw this today on Pa Supreme Court Site.
LEROY SPANN, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND
PAROLE AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,
Appellees
No. 71 MAP 2016
Appeal from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 728 MD
2012 dated June 9, 2016.
File August 16 2017 – Pa Supreme Court
JUSTICE MUNDY FILED: August 16, 2017
I agree that in light of this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz,
___ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 3173066 (Pa. July 19, 2017), the Commonwealth Court erred in
rejecting Appellant’s argument that SORNA is an ex post facto law.1
However, if I were writing on a blank slate, I would conclude that SORNA does not violate the Ex Post
Facto Clauses of the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
I have previously expressed my views in this area in Commonwealth v. Perez, 97
A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014). Therein, the Superior Court balanced the factors
articulated under Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). The panel
concluded that SORNA’s requirement that an offender appear physically in person to
regularly update his or her information was “an affirmative restraint,” weighing in favor of
1
I did not participate in Muniz, which was argued with Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 48
MAP 2016, a case in which I participated on the Superior Court.
2
concluding SORNA was punitive, and therefore an ex post facto law. Perez, 97 A.3d at
754. However, the court also concluded that the other six factors did not weigh in favor
of concluding SORNA was punitive. See id. 754-58. Balancing these factors, Perez
concluded that SORNA was not punitive, and therefore not an ex post facto law under
the Federal Constitution.2
Id. at 758-59.
I continue to believe that Perez was correctly decided and struck the proper
balance under controlling cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. I
therefore disagree with Muniz’s conclusion that SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the Federal Constitution. Even assuming that Muniz’s federal constitutional
analysis was correct, its analysis should have properly ended there, since any claim
under the Pennsylvania Constitution is moot. See generally Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie,
719 A.2d 273, 281 n.12 (Pa. 1998) (concluding that since a local ordinance violated the
First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, there was no need to consider whether
the ordinance also violated the Pennsylvania Constitution), rev’d, 529 U.S. 277 (2000).
Since the Court decided to reach that argument, I agree with Justice Wecht that the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide higher protections
than its federal counterpart. See Muniz, 2017 WL 3173066, at *26-33 (Wecht, J.,
concurring).
Although I disagree with Muniz’s conclusions, they are now the law of this
Commonwealth. As such, they must be applied in a meaningful way. No sensible
reading of Muniz would permit the Commonwealth Court’s contrary judgment to stand. I
2
The panel did not address Perez’s claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution, due to
his failure to conduct an analysis pursuant to Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d
887 (Pa. 1991) in his brief. See Perez, 97 A.3d at 759-60.
3
therefore join the Court’s order in this case, because it correctly applies Muniz and
reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order in this regard.
Awesome read:
http://www.dailyitem.com/news/state-police-scrambling-to-comply-with-change-to-megan-s/article_66084642-848c-11e7-92b2-4fe13fa9b115.html
Husband would like to know, any dismissals for failure to registers, under SORNA because Muniz Decision stated SORNA didnt apply to them. Paul have you heard anything or AJ?
Nothing yet. I think everyone is going to have to file with the courts. They are up to something and I think we will hear what their plan is after the 12th. I originally thought Aaron Marcus was pushing for relief for all of us effected but now that I see a pattern of him working with Freed and other DAs on this I’m worried about what they are up to. I think he would have issued a statement by now of what is going on. They are hoping we wait for some reason. I also think Muniz might be being tricked right now, not sure what but, I’m thinking by him filing a motion for an answer it will speed up PASC having to decide if they are going to stay the record. If they stay the record will PASC be able to issue orders or remands based off Muniz? So, I’m hoping that someone can get a group started to help everyone file at the same time at as little of an expense as possible. I don’t have the info i need to do it myself. I think to do it right you have to exhaust all ave before you file a writ of Mandamus and I don’t know if that is a letter to the PSP and the trial court or what.
Will Da Freed and the AG file an appeal now that Colorado stated cruel and unusaul punishment? My husband believes that, Mr. Freed stated the registry is apart of there punishment and the woman interviewed out of Colorado did too during her crime committed statement about victims and how the registry is apart of there punishment. It seems like it would be a harder fight now that more government officials are losing there ability to lie about it not being punishment. That is what God does, he takes control!! God will make them tell the truth, it is easy to lie for so long, but when asked the right question at the right time, truth is told!
The PA Supreme Court just issued a Stay in its ruling on Muniz. I have a feeling that we are now in for a two year fight before this becomes the law of the land. Cumberland county will most likely file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States which could take anywhere from 1 year to dismiss it or 2-3 years to hear the case and not overturn. Sucky day!!
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2017, upon review of the Commonwealth’s Application for Stay of Remand of Record Pending United States Supreme Court Review Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c)” and Appellant’s Answer thereto, remand of the record in this case is hereby STAYED. The record shall be remanded on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 unless the Prothonotary receives notice prior to that date that the Commonwealth has filed a jurisdictional statement or petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c).
I am hoping freed doesn’t file but i’m sure he will He looks like he just pulled his head out of a cows ass. I’m calling Aaron Marcus again.
My husband wanted me to post this again. The US Supreme Court said no to the stay in Michigan. Once the appeal is in from Commonwealth of Pa on Oct 17 2017. This will happen in Pa.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/15/michigan-sex-offender-ruling/93927644/
My husband wanted to remind all of you on this decision in the US Supreme Court. He also said if they ruled on this, why would they get involved in the Michigan State Registry and Pa State Registry. Both states have two different rules and regs to follow, why would they combine them or hear them. Both states ruled on there own states. The US Supreme Court may not hear either now that Colorado Judge Ruled it Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Dont forget this ruling.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/03/supreme-court-unanimously-overturns-north-carolinas-ban-on-social-media-use-by-sex-offenders/
My husband wants insight from anyone and everyone on this ruling vacating a Failure to Register Conviction in Pennsylvania on October 4 2017 for Shawn Williams who was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna
The decision was ruled because of this,
(((((((((((((On July 18, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion stating that we were
constrained by prior precedent to conclude that SORNA did not violate ex
post facto laws.
The following day, our Supreme issued its Opinion in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, __ A.3d __, No. 47 MAP 2016 (Pa. filed July 19,
2017) (OAJC), wherein the Court held that SORNA’s registration
requirements violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.3
In light of Muniz, this Court entered an Order withdrawing our July
18th Opinion. In subsequent Post-Submission Communications, Appellant
and the Commonwealth both agree that Appellant is entitled to relief.
3) Although a plurality Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court
(“OAJC”) has no precedential value, “where a concurring opinion enumerates
the portions of the plurality’s opinion in which the author joins or disagrees,
those portions of agreement gain precedential value.” Commonwealth v.
Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 556 (Pa. Super. 2011). In Muniz, the OAJC found
that SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses under both the Pennsylvania
and United States Constitutions. Justice Wecht’s Concurring Opinion, joined
by Justice Todd, found that SORNA violates the Pennsylvania Constitution
and declined to consider whether SORNA violates the United States
Constitution. Thus, the binding precedent arising out of Muniz is limited to
the finding that SORNA’s registration requirements violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Because Appellant was convicted in 1998 of the offense triggering
SORNA’s applicability—more than a decade before SORNA was passed into
law—pursuant to Muniz, SORNA’s retroactive application violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, Appellant’s
convictions for failing to comply with registration requirements which ought
never have applied to him must be vacated.
Convictions and Judgment of Sentence vacated. Case remanded ))))))))))))))))))))
– What this is saying is the, it is binding precedent arising out of Muniz is limited to the finding that SORNA’s registration requirements STILL VIOLATE the ex post facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
– DA Freed may have been able to get a US Supreme Court Justice to stay the Muniz Decision, and then have us all believe the Muniz Decision is stayed or halted all together as a whole.
– DA Freed failed to tell the committee on Sept 12 2017 that they only stayed or halted the federal ruling of Muniz pending the filing of an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
– DA Freed never told them that the state constitutional violation is still LAW, per this case, provided in the posting shows this.
– The Courts are using the the ex post facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution violation to overturn convictions.
– The fact that they chose to overturn Shawn Williams failure to register under SORNA conviction, per the PA State violation only shows that 10,000 registered citizens are due relief and DA Freed is in complete violation of our rights.
– The fact that they overturn Shawn Williams failure to register under SORNA conviction, per MUNIZ, state decision, shows that the Commonwealth of PA cant prosecute Failure to Registers and that is why in Cumberland County, PA there is handful of sex offenders charged with failure to registers that the courts are continuing there cases pending the outcome of the filing of an appeal by DA Freed to the US Supreme Court.
– DA Freed can still file an appeal to the US Supreme Court, but hopefully he saw the Snyder v Doe case in Michigan get denied by the US Supreme Court. More than likely it would be denied.
– However, DA Freed can’t ask them to hear an appeal on the state decision of Muniz because of the attached case overturning a conviction using Muniz, state ruling, on October 4 2017 while, the federal ruling is halted pending appeal.
– Any insight, AJ, PAUL, MIKE R, TIM MOORE, JANICE, anyone involved on a regular basis, my ears and eyes are open for my husband!
File Dismissal on your Failure to Register Cases if you have been arrested or convicted under Sorna, were Muniz Owes your relief!
Here is your case to use to file for your dismissals!
vacating a Failure to Register Conviction in Pennsylvania on October 4 2017 for Shawn Williams who was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna
The decision was ruled because of this,
(((((((((((((On July 18, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion stating that we were
constrained by prior precedent to conclude that SORNA did not violate ex
post facto laws.
The following day, our Supreme issued its Opinion in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, __ A.3d __, No. 47 MAP 2016 (Pa. filed July 19,
2017) (OAJC), wherein the Court held that SORNA’s registration
requirements violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.3
In light of Muniz, this Court entered an Order withdrawing our July
18th Opinion. In subsequent Post-Submission Communications, Appellant
and the Commonwealth both agree that Appellant is entitled to relief.
3) Although a plurality Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court
(“OAJC”) has no precedential value, “where a concurring opinion enumerates
the portions of the plurality’s opinion in which the author joins or disagrees,
those portions of agreement gain precedential value.” Commonwealth v.
Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 556 (Pa. Super. 2011). In Muniz, the OAJC found
that SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses under both the Pennsylvania
and United States Constitutions. Justice Wecht’s Concurring Opinion, joined
by Justice Todd, found that SORNA violates the Pennsylvania Constitution
and declined to consider whether SORNA violates the United States
Constitution. Thus, the binding precedent arising out of Muniz is limited to
the finding that SORNA’s registration requirements violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Because Appellant was convicted in 1998 of the offense triggering
SORNA’s applicability—more than a decade before SORNA was passed into
law—pursuant to Muniz, SORNA’s retroactive application violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, Appellant’s
convictions for failing to comply with registration requirements which ought
never have applied to him must be vacated.
Convictions and Judgment of Sentence vacated. Case remanded ))))))))))))))))))))
Question:
Inregard to decisions favoring Muniz and Williams in PA; How would those cases affect mine in CA with a conviction date back in ’94?
@Mark writes on, September 5 2017,
Mike
September 5, 2017
The PA Supreme Court just issued a Stay in its ruling on Muniz. I have a feeling that we are now in for a two year fight before this becomes the law of the land. Cumberland county will most likely file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States which could take anywhere from 1 year to dismiss it or 2-3 years to hear the case and not overturn. Sucky day!!
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2017, upon review of the Commonwealth’s Application for Stay of Remand of Record Pending United States Supreme Court Review Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c)” and Appellant’s Answer thereto, remand of the record in this case is hereby STAYED. The record shall be remanded on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 unless the Prothonotary receives notice prior to that date that the Commonwealth has filed a jurisdictional statement or petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c).
Here is what my husband has been looking up on the Supreme Court Judicial Web Site for recent cases and due to these two most recent cases, there is absolutely NO STAY on The Pennsylvania Constitution Ruling of Ex Post Facto Clause. Both the attached cases are dated on OCT 4, 2017.
Explain how a stay is granted, but the courts are still honoring the PA Constitution Ruling.
Like @AJ has stated before the Commonwealth cant appeal the PA State Ruling, therefore no stay can be granted on something they cant appeal.
With that said, in this case, it says THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE APPEALANT BOTH AGREE THAT HE IS ENTITLED RELIEF PER MUNIZ. Again, BOTH THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE APPEALANT BOTH AGREE THAT HE IS ENTITLED RELIEF PER MUNIZ.
In the Commonwealth v Williams case, overturned his convictions for failure to register as a sex under SORNA, because he was not to be under SORNA because it is illegal to apply SORNA retroactively to him.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna
And this case is just added to confirm that another appealant was granted his relief also.
Well, played DA FREED. But the courts are still granting relief.
I just searched the docket on SCOTUS’s website, first using keyword “commonwealth” and then using the keyword “muniz”. I even did searches using “sorna” and “sex offender” just for grins. Surprise, surprise…no results that fit. I think Mr. Freed is either blowing smoke about the petition (despite his testimony that he had already filed! Can you say perjury to a legislative body?), or they’re working really hard trying to spit-shine the turd they have in hand. Either way, 7 days and counting for the good folks in PA to see if PA files. If they do, then another ten days (Oct 27) until the next SCOTUS conference, and then another three days (Oct 30) until Orders are released. Be patient, PA RCs, I suspect you may have a Halloween worth celebrating!
My husband just thought of this, arent the stay or halt decisions only good for 30 days?
And they have to file with in 30 or ask for a extension for another stay or halt decision?
If that is the case, good timing by the Superior Court to order Williams covictions to be overturned on the day the stay or halt of Muniz ran out.
I know the Commonwealth has a right to ask for another stay or halt, if the court agrees with there reason for the delay in filing.
@aj you stated that tbere is no Muniz, Sorna, Sex Offender, Commonwealth on the search of Us Supreme Court.
My husband noticed that too over the weekend. He believes the stay is lifted because the 30 days is up.
And if Da Freed and the commonwealth didnt file for a new stay or halt then tbe next 7 days will be interesting.
My husband says this lightly, he doesnt think we see an appeal we see a date see all Pre Sorna going on ML2 or similiar with no community notification, just report as required before Sorna. Its easy. Its saves some from getting off the registry all at once. It will allow new ones on Sorna as the pre sorna get off after there 10 years. Making for a balanced number across the board and not a crazy community who feels like sex offenders will get them now since the arent registered.
The only way this was going to be in my husband and 10,000 others favor is if DA Freed had control of it.
God has his number, we just pray for him!
Today is Wednesday Oct 11, 2017. DA Freed and the Commonwealth of PA have not file there writ. Thursday Oct 12 2017 and Friday Oct 13 2017 is a business day in the court system. Then on Monday Oct 17 2017, is a business day in the court system. DA Freed and the Commonwealth of PA these 3 days to file. Saturday and Sunday count towards the time for writ to be filed. In short they have 3 days.
Moving ahead, Dauphin County PA, inside information. A Failure to Register case was dismissed a week ago because he was not to be on SORNA. Again dismissed a week ago because he was not to be on SORNA. The dismissal for the failure to register is after the stay. I am guessing the stay is good for the Federal Ruling only.
Moving ahead again, Commonwealth v Williams, Oct 4 2017. Conviction for Failure to register is overturned, almost a 9 to 18 year sentence for his second failure to register is overturned. Again after the stay was granted.
Moving ahead again, Synder v Doe, Michigan Case, US Supreme Court denies writ to hear the case on Oct 2, 2017. Does DA Freed and the Commonwealth see the writing on the wall with this case, the US Supreme Court denied a Federal Arguement, ex post facto.
Moving ahead, if US Supreme Court said no to a federal writ, appeal in Michigan, and the only appeal DA Freed and Commonwealth have to file for a writ on is the federal ruling, do they?
3 days business days to file.
Here is a guy from Bradford PA that just got arrested on failure to comply his conviction was in the 90’s before SORNA
http://www.bradfordera.com/news/bradford-man-arrested-for-alleged-megan-s-law-violation/article_13665b24-ae1f-11e7-bef7-7792552d46a6.html
This guy who got arrested for not registering ,, crime was before sorna ,, he needs to get an attorney and review the commonwealth vs. williams case …. a good case for mallicious prosecution… may be able to sue for punitive damages on the premise of right of reputation pa. state consitution….
Yes, Commonwealth v Williams in a very important ruling! He was arrested for failure to register. He was sentenced under PRE SORNA at time of sex crime. He was forced to comply with SORNA. His convictions for failure were before MUNIZ DECISION, JULY 19 2017. Williams case was overturned and can be used to dismiss a failure to register case only if your sex crime that put you on the registry was prior to MUNIZ DECISION JULY 19 2017. Only registriants before Dec 20 2012, convictions, sentences, or the act itself was prior to Dec 20 2017 are the only ones due relief from MUNIZ DECISION JULY 19 2017. My husband has a dismissal hearing very soon for a failure. His motion to dismiss is using Muniz, both federal and state ruling, but will only be requesting the court to use the state ruling for relief. But if the Commonwealth doesnt appeal in the next two days. He wont have to argue anything!!!
Hey AJ, do you think it’s possible that CA will ignore a federal district judge if he decides in my favor? I don’t think they can get away with that if it is decided unconstitutional under the
US constitution…..?
To 9,
9
October 15, 2017
What is the Dec 20th date Not sure why failure to comply would have to be before that date if SORNA doesn’t apply.
Read please.
THE SEX CRIME NEEDED TO BE BEFORE THE day SORNA began DEC 20 2012 DATE that put you on SORNA.
If you convicted before SORNA with a sex crime you are not supposed to registering under SORNA.
Get it yet, @JIM. It is simple to underdstand. Keep reading this and other posts. And you will soon understand.
The failure to register under SORNA needed to be after the SORNA because if you got a failure to register under SORNA and you were not supposed to be on SORNA then by law of Muniz is needs to be dismissed or overturned.
It doesnt matter if DA FREED OR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA file their writ for cert because the stay of remand dated Sept 5 2017 is only good for the federal ruling is what we all assume. @aj and @wrfl
This case proves the PA CONSTITUTIONAL RULING IS LAW IN PA UNDER MUNIZ.
Shawn Christopher Williams, convictions for failure to register under SORNA were overturned on OCT 4 2017. One month after the stay of remand.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA