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: Testimony on House Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law Residence Restrictions
Source: aclupa.org 9/12/23 Session: 2023-2024 Hearing: House Judiciary Committee | Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law residence restrictions... -
PA: Efficacy of sex offender residency rules questioned in Pa. House hearing
Source: pennlive.com 9/12/23 A bill that would restrict where certain sex offenders could live in Pennsylvania... -
PA: Megan’s Law hearing canceled
Source: altoonamirror.com 5/12/23 HOLLIDAYSBURG — Blair County Senior Judge Timothy M. Sullivan won’t be hearing arguments...
My husbands attorney will be filing his writ of mandamus on the PA state constutional ruling to his lower court. He will be requesting court to place him back on Megans Law 3 which was his active registration requirement at time of sentence. He will be using the Commonwealth v Muniz and Commonwealth v Williams as case law to show the court how the recent case decisions are using the state ruling to decide. Since the federal ruling is stayed, the state ruling is still binding authority.
Here it is Docket for 17-575
Title:Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jose M. Muniz
Jose M. Muniz Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2017)
No. 17-575
Title: Pennsylvania, Petitioner
v.
Jose M. Muniz
Docketed: October 17, 2017
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Numbers: (a7 MAP 2016)
Decision Date: July 19, 2017
DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Oct 13 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2017)
If the Stay for Muniz is in effect, it is obviously only in effect for the Federal. All these cases have came out after the STAT OF SEPT 5 2017. SOME POWER HOUSE CASES TOO!
We will see next week how many more cases come through decided using Muniz, during this stay.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25181722.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/j-a21023-17m.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/judgment%20order%20-%20vacated-remanded%20-%2010322271522995966.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25037847.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/24192333.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
@Mike, there is good chance that your case might get consolidate with the idaho case once it reaches the appeal level (http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article103701212.html) and another amended petition in the 9th pertaining to neveda sorna (https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/sex-crimes/amended-lawsuit-challenges-nevada-law-governing-registration-of-sex-offenders/) and then another pending case in Tennessee (4th circuit?)….so many cases all at one.
@mike, here’s the link to the henry case
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1508832.html
Thanks TX, that Henry case appears to be a state appeals court decision and not a federal case coming out of the 9th circuit. If there was no federal case then the district court has an incredibly weak argument relying on a state of appeals ruling. It is completely weak anyways, all these cases are, including that Idaho and Nevada cases. Their all weak and ineffective, the bare minimum was done just to keep the lawyers from being disbarred for incompetence. They are all weak….To many plaintiffs, and argued terrifically, with very little evidence and rely almost completely on suppositions….
My husband located this to confirm @aj.
The reason why he believes the State Constitution Violation Ruling of Muniz his being used for relief is this.
In Calder v Bull, it says this,
“Second, the Supreme Court said it had no authority to decide if an act of a state legislature violated that state’s constitution. The Supreme Court decision says, “this court has no jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state Legislature, contrary to the Constitution of such state is void.”
This is a huge case and he believes is the reason why SCOTUS, cant rule on the State Constitution Violation of Muniz.
He believes that the STAY OF REMAND, has been only good for the Federal because all levels of the court system know this has been said by SCOTUS in this case and any case to follow all these years later using this.
It has been decided that SORNA is a ex post facto violation, on both federal and state levels. Pa Supreme Court made sure that Muniz Decision will be law and binding on the state ruling. And they made sure they protected their decision from being overturned by SCOTUS.
This is why Commonwealth V Williams, Oct 4 2017, decided to overturn his failure to registet under SORNA convictions
So now that it looks like the petition for an appeal to SCOTUS has been submitted, I saw a date showing I think November 16th, 2017 to respond? What is the timeline like now? Does that mean that SCOTUS has until November 16th to decide if they will hear the case? If they don’t, the stay is lifted? If they do, it stays in effect until they make a ruling on it which is likely to be sometime in 2018?
Lots of questions there, I’m sorry. I’m just trying to get an idea of what exactly we’re looking at now.
I am quite sure PA will play games with the SCOTUS calendar to delay things as long as they can. That said, absent SCOTUS wanting to overturn longstanding procedure and precedent, the petition will be denied. As we all know, Muniz is a two-pronged suit, involving violation of the PA and US constitutions. Calder v. Bull settles the first one, preventing SCOTUS from having jurisdiction. But what about the US constitutional issue? Here too, SCOTUS has established a system, and it doesn’t bode well for PA. I’ve mentioned it before, and had to dig around to find it again, but I refer you to the Last Resort Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule). Of specific interest in regards to Muniz are Brandeis’ Second Application of the Last Resort Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#Brandeis.27_Second_Application_of_the_.22Last_Resort_Rule.22) and the Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#The_Adequate_and_Independent_State_Ground_Doctrine). It’s a bit much to go into here, but essentially these two items result in SCOTUS denying a case that will only yield “advisory opinions and unnecessary constitutional rulings,” and which doesn’t, “accord[] sufficient respect to the authority of state courts.”
Or, as said in Ashwander v TN: “Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 211 U. S. 53.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/288/case.html)
=====
IMO, PA is either woefully uneducated on SCOTUS precedent and procedure, or is using the SCOTUS calendar as a delay tactic….or both. Or put simply, they are ignorant, malicious, or both.
Hopefully SCOTUS’s clerks see the absolute futility of the petition and give it an early thumbs-down.
@Mike, a great article on the idaho registration challenge…
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/28/sex-offenders-argue-that-idahos-retroact#comment
Raines is charged by Aliquippa police with a felony charge of failure to comply with registration of sexual offender requirements.
http://www.timesonline.com/6854b57e-9efa-11e7-a0fe-eba7944f2ef3.html
Docket sheet Keeps getting continued No arrest on sheet
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-36304-CR-0000335-2017
My husband wanted me to help all of you to understand what the MUNIZ DECISION means and who is to get the relief, whether its today or after SCOTUS denies or grants, or agrees after the appeal is granted.
Time line of Events:
MUNIZ DECISION – July 19 2017. Please read summary of case and who it gives release too. This means anyone whether you were not required to register pre sorna, 10 year pre sorna (Megans 1, 2 , or 3), life time pre sorna (Megans 2 or 3), and anyone deemed SVP pre Sorna. This is a retroactive decision, of both ex post facto, state and federal two part ruling, separate rulings for each state and federal constitution.
By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, SORNA/Megan’s Law Attorney, Harrisburg, PA
In Commonwealth v. Muniz, ___ Pa. ____, ____ A.3d ___ (July 19, 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently determined in a majority decision that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) or “Megan’s Law IV” registration requirements are “punishment.” Therefore, the registration provisions violate the ex post facto (“after the fact”) clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. It cannot be applied retroactively. Any sentence or registration period that constitutes punishment, as the Court determined, cannot be applied to someone after they are already sentenced. So, if you were sentenced prior to December 20, 2012 OR the alleged offense occurred prior to December 20, 2012 this decision applies to you. This decision does not invalidate the current registration regime under SORNA for those convicted after December 20, 2012.
**Then many case received relief with entire Muniz Decision both federal and state ruling of the Muniz Decision.
** UNTIL A STAY OF REMAND – PA Supreme Court Sept 5 2017 and as we all know that the stay of remand was only good for the federal ruling, ex post facto constitutional ruling. Many case were granted relief before the stay of remand using both rulings, however the state constitutional ruling was used to grant relief after this.
** THEN ON OCTOBER 4 2017, a huge decision came through after the STAY OF REMAND of Sept 5 2017 and before the Commonwealth filed its writ of cert to SCOTUS. Read the case, the state constitutional ruling is law and it explains why MUNIZ IS STILL LAW.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
**EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND AND STOP WORRYING, THE STATE RULING IS LAW and yes all of RC’s due relief will need to file a writ of mandamus to the lower courts, on the conviction that placed you on PRE SORNA or what the PSP used to force you on SORNA.
**DA Freed and the Commonwealth can’t place PRE SORNA’s on any registry they are trying to make up quick, that has anything other than, registering your vehicle, home, school, job. They cant make you register an internet identifier because NO PRE SORNA requirements ever sentenced you to this.
**If the Commonwealth designs a NEW LAW to replace the SORNA requirements that Pre Sorna RC’s were forced to do, THE NEW CRIME CODE is different from the SORNA crime code, and all FAILURE TO REGISTERS WILL NEED TO BE overturned, dismissed, etc.
**The guy from the recent Bradford PA failure to register, needs to get a good attorney. He is due relief from SORNA.
Hope this helps!
@paul2
My husband wants you to read this case. The Superior Court overturned this mans conviction for failure to register conviction on Oct 4 2017. After the Sept 5 2017 stay of remand. He was charged and convicted of Sorna Violations and his convictions were overturned 2 weeks ago. Why? Because he was never supposed to be charged for Sorna Violations, and they ovetturned his conviction for failure to register. He was Pre Sorna.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf
What are you worried about, did you get arrested for a failure to register and you are pre sorna and unsure if it will be dismissed?
This man who is charged, cant be charged, but the PSP doesnt care. They are being told to follow through for charging people. Then they continue there proceedings. They dont try and convict.
http://explorevenango.com/emlenton-man-to-be-sentenced-for-failure-to-comply-with-megans-law-registration-requirements/
Per this case they cant prosecute.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf
My husband wants you to read this case. The Superior Court overturned this mans conviction for failure to register conviction on Oct 4 2017. After the Sept 5 2017 stay of remand. He was charged and convicted of Sorna Violations and his convictions were overturned 2 weeks ago. Why? Because he was never supposed to be charged for Sorna Violations, and they ovetturned his conviction for failure to register. He was Pre Sorna.
Here is a copy and paste from an article that they cant sentence a man for his sex assault charges and sentence him to SORNA because his crimes were committed prior to SORNA December 20 2012. And they have nothing to sentence him too for the Megan’s Law. This is for @Paul2
Ex-Oley Valley school bus driver’s sentencing delayed
Saturday September 9, 2017 12:01 AM
Written by David Mekeel
The sentencing of a former Oley Valley School District bus driver was delayed after questions arose around state requirements about reporting as a sexual offender.
Arthur Fick was in Berks County President Judge Paul M. Yatron’s courtroom Friday morning for sentencing on a charge of indecent assault, which he pled no contest to in June. But the hearing had to be deferred to Oct. 27 when it became unclear if Fick was mandated to report as a sexual offender, something the district attorney’s office believed was the case when they offered him a plea deal.
TODAY’S SPONSOR:
The waters have become muddy due to a recent state Supreme Court ruling that says defendants aren’t subject to reporting requirements in the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) if the crimes occurred before it went into effect in 2012, which is the case with Fick.
The previous state statute, known as Megan’s Law III, expired at the end of 2012 as part of the new SORNA.
Fick’s attorney, Todd Mays, argued that means Fick isn’t subject to that statute either because he was charged and pled guilty after its expiration. That would mean there is no state statute requiring him to register.
Colin Boyer, assistant district attorney, said that if that’s the case, then the district attorney’s office would want to rethink its plea offer.
Yatron decided to delay the proceeding in order to get more clarity on the situation, lamenting the situation the state has created.
“This is another brilliant move by our General Assembly,” he said sarcastically.
Yatron said not having the ability to require a sexual offender to report is a “departure from our entire jurisprudence on the subject.”
“This whole situation is troubling to me,” he said of being forced to delay the hearing. “But it can’t be escaped.”
Fick, 80, of the first block of Gauby Road, Alsace Township, pled no contest to charges that he inappropriately touched two elementary school girls, one in 2001 and the other in 2008. A no contest plea means Fick conceded that prosecutors could prove he committed the crime but it is not an admission of guilt.
Fick was charged with the assaults in March 2016, more than eight years after he was fired from the bus company following a parent’s complaint.
The first incident came to light in December 2015 when authorities received a ChildLine report.
In that report, a girl, who is now 17, said Fick inappropriately touched her more than once when he was her bus driver in 2008. She was an Oley Valley Elementary School student at the time.
The girl’s mother reported the abuse in 2008 and Fick was fired by his employer, Quigley Bus Service, which was contracted by Oley Valley to provide transportation services.
Authorities also discovered another girl said a similar incident happened to her in January 2001. The second victim, who is now 25 and lives out of state, reported she was indecently assaulted by Fick while she was in elementary school.
That girl’s mother reported the abuse to school district officials at the time and the case was turned over to county children and youth services, which investigated. The outcome of the investigation was unclear.
Prior to the decision to delay Friday, Boyer read a moving victim impact statement written by the young girl assaulted by Fick in 2008. In it, she said it’s hard to express what his actions have done to her, saying she now has social anxiety, depression, insomnia, post traumatic stress disorder and other issues.
“I pretty much stay inside by myself most of the time,” her statement read.
The victim said she only ventures out when accompanied by her parents or brothers, and has been forced to stop attending public school. She no longer cares about things, her statement said, and finds herself often crying and filled with shame.
“I feel I will never be the same person I was,” her statement said.
The victim went on to express regret about not telling someone about what Fick was doing to her earlier, but said she “was just a little girl” and didn’t fully understand what was happening. Someday, her statement said, she hopes to return to being the carefree child she once was.
“I just want to be happy again,” her statement said.
Contact David Mekeel: 610-371-5014 or dmekeel@readingeagle.com.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25739435.pdf
My husband wants to know is this your case??
This victory, they used the US CONSTITUTIONAL RULING of Muniz.
That is a logical reason behind it, but why would any court even waste there time in granting any relief per MUNIZ. They are the courts they don’t have time restraints on deciding anything per MUNIZ. They could sit on there rulings until US SUPREME COURT grants or denies? They don’t need to waste there time deciding. My husband believes that they are making the rulings, allowing us to know that Superior Court and all lower Courts, are honoring the decision of the PA Supreme Court because they unlike DA Freed except the loss and move on to the next case.
To @Jim, the question remains, ARE YOU OFF SORNA OR NOT? You have won a case and you have had an attorney. My husband read your decision. It says that per Muniz you cant be forced to be on SORNA. If that is the case your attorney should of marched down to the PSP today and had your name removed, so if my husband looks up your name, it wont be there right? Because if it is the ruling that you got is being violated by the PSP.
If you were not removed today from the SORNA webpage, otherwise known as Megans Law website, explain why your attorney cant get you removed with your decision yesterday?????? It a coury decision and should be treated as a court order for the PSP to comply with!
This will answer all of our questions, if you are removed, the stay is clearly BS and we are all getting played by the Commonwealth!
Here the only important cases, even though there have been many since Muniz on July 19 2017. Everyone is questioning the stay of remand. On Sept 5 2017, a stay of remand was granted, it voided on Oct 17 2017. If SCOTUS granted the Commonwealth of PA new stay of remand, no proof of this on the SCOTUS site. Moving forward, one the cases below is Muniz. The second case that use only PA CONSTITUTIONAL RULING, of Muniz. And the third is @Jims case using the US Constitutional Ruling. Its easy to see the writing on the wall.
In Muniz, there were two seperate rulings inside one case, One Ruling out of the Muniz Case was the US Constitution violation, ex post facto, which truthfully has no merit, because we are protected by the Second Ruling of Muniz, PA Constitution Violation, ex post facto.
This case http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22 and was decided on Oct 4 2017, after the Stay of Remand on the PA Supreme Court level, this said per the PA State Constitution Violation, Williams is due relief and overturned 2 convictions of failure to register because he should have never been forced to register under SORNA. Plain and simple, overturned his 8 to 17 year sentence for failure to register under SORNA. This case allows any cases of failure to register to be dismissed or dropped, with a real attorney who knows his law.
Second Case is http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25739435.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22, this is @JIM case from October 23 2017, after PA Filed for writ, and we all believe because for some reason we believe that PSP are honest people, and that there is a stay of remand on MUNIZ. If that is the case, this case was decided on the US Constitutional Ruling of Muniz, no where in the decision was the State Ruling even talked about.
My husband and I are waiting on @Jim’s response to if he was released from SORNA today, with his decision or what the PSP is telling his attorney. And what his attorney is now doing the PSP to honor the decision made in his favor per MUNIZ, US Constitution.
These two cases are huge, does not matter if they are precedented cases or not, MUNIZ is the Case that matters, it is the reason why these two people gain relief.
@Jim are you still on the registry?
Because not many RC have jobs that can pay $5000 or more for writ to mandamus. Thats why!
Comment: It appears that the International Travel Notification Requirement in Pennsylvania for those convicted before 2012 would not have to register. This notification is a retroactive requirement of the legislation that the State Supreme Court just threw out. So, does this mean no international prior notice to the state and a 21 day waiting period is required for some offenders?
I thought that this group might be interested in this Commonwealth Court Case. I’ve been following it for a little while since the Muniz decision allowed Huyett to move his case along. You will see that the Commonwealth Court stayed the entire case until Muniz makes its way through SCOTUS. I am guessing that any Petition for Mandamus relief will suffer the same delay.
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=516+MD+2015
My husband wanted to let you know, this article just came through. There is NO STAY, we are being lied too! Attorney, just told my husband there is NO STAY!
http://www.mcall.com/news/police/mc-nws-pennsylvania-megans-law-sex-offender-registry-unconsitutional-20171024-story.html
FROM THE ARTICLE, Shawn Christopher Williams, was released from Prison, DA Northhampton County withdrew his charges, after this decision!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/25035971.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
FROM ARTICLE,
http://www.mcall.com/news/police/mc-nws-pennsylvania-megans-law-sex-offender-registry-unconsitutional-20171024-story.html
Among rulings this month in already pending cases:
* The state Supreme Court struck down the registration requirements of Edmund L. Haenig, a former Bethlehem police officer who was sentenced in 1996 to 2 ½ to 12 years in prison in a Lehigh County sex case. At the time, the charges did not require him to register as a sex offender. But with SORNA’s enactment, Haenig, who lives in West Reading, was hit with a 15-year mandate.
* The state Superior Court vacated the conviction of Shawn Christopher Williams, a 41-year-old Easton man who was serving 33 months to 10 years in state prison after being found guilty in 2016 of failing to register. Williams insisted he was under no such mandate when he was sentenced in 1998 for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl, for which he spent a decade incarcerated. His lawyer, James Brose, argued that forcing Williams to register years later was unconstitutional.
http://www.mcall.com/news/police/mc-nws-pennsylvania-megans-law-sex-offender-registry-unconsitutional-20171024-story.html
* The state Superior Court vacated the conviction of Shawn Christopher Williams, a 41-year-old Easton man who was serving 33 months to 10 years in state prison after being found guilty in 2016 of failing to register. Williams insisted he was under no such mandate when he was sentenced in 1998 for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl, for which he spent a decade incarcerated. His lawyer, James Brose, argued that forcing Williams to register years later was unconstitutional.
Given the Superior Court’s ruling, prosecutors last week formally withdrew the failing-to-register charges, Brose said. As a result, Williams was released Oct. 20 from Dallas State Prison in Luzerne County after spending 20 months behind bars, according to Department of Corrections records.