Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
M.J. Brouillette v. T. Wolf, Governorgreen2 sentences2022While that direct appeal was pending, Registrant filed the instant PFR, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief8 to overturn his criminal conviction because: (1) the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose the judgment of sentence and he entered his guilty plea under duress; (2) the former SORNA registration requirement purportedly violates his ex post facto, double jeopardy, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and self-incrimination rights, and his right to the effective assistance of counsel; (3) the former SORNA registration We note that “[p]etitions for declaratory judgme 2022Id. (citations omitted). 6 requirement impairs his contract with South Carolina authorities removing the reporting requirement there, and the full faith and credit of the South Carolina agreement; and (4) the former SORNA registration requirement violates his fundamental right to travel. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Baker-Myersgreen1 sentence2021See Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers, 210 A.3d 1093, 1096 (Pa. Super. 2019), affirmed, ___ A.3d ___, 2021 WL 3073152 . - 10 - J-A01045-21 disturbed, and we need not remand for resentencing. | 1 | 1 |
J. Taylor v. The PSP of the Commonwealth of PAgreen1 sentence2016But see Commonwealth v. Martinez, ___ A.3d ___, ___ (Pa. No. 30 MAP 2015, filed September 28, 2016), slip. op. at 19 n.17 (stating “[i]t … remains an open question whether SORNA’s registration requirements constitute punishment for constitutional purposes”)5; Taylor v. Pa. State Police, 132 A.3d 590, 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (concluding that it is not clear that SORNA’s internet notification provision does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
Coppolino v. Noonangreen1 sentence2016No. 1028(a)(3)(4). 6 To the extent the Amended Petition can be read as alleging that the SORNA registration requirement for convicted sex offenders violates the constitutional prohibition regarding ex post facto laws, we already have held in Coppolino v. Noonan, 102 A.3d 1254, 1278-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), aff'd, 125 A.3d 1196 (Pa. 2015), that SORNA is civil remedial legislation not punitive in nature, and that the retroactive application of its registration requirements, save Section 9799.15(g),4 does not constitute an ex post facto law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Martin
green
2 sentences2019The majority properly relies on our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Martin, 205 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2019),1 that the trial court’s imposition of the SORNA registration requirement was not an illegal sentence. 2019The majority properly relies on our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Martin, 205 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2019),2 that the trial court’s imposition of the SORNA registration requirement was not an illegal sentence. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Hainesworth
green
2 sentences2015In Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc), [appeal denied, 95 A.3d 276 (Pa.2014),] the trial court dismissed the defendant’s “motion seeking termination of supervision,” which he filed to avoid the retroactive application of the SORNA registration requirement. 2014In Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc), the trial court dismissed the defendant’s “motion seeking termination of supervision,” which he filed to avoid the retroactive application of the SORNA registration requirement. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Kerak v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2016No. 1028(a)(3)(4). 6 To the extent the Amended Petition can be read as alleging that the SORNA registration requirement for convicted sex offenders violates the constitutional prohibition regarding ex post facto laws, we already have held in Coppolino v. Noonan, 102 A.3d 1254, 1278-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), aff'd, 125 A.3d 1196 (Pa. 2015), that SORNA is civil remedial legislation not punitive in nature, and that the retroactive application of its registration requirements, save Section 9799.15(g),4 does not constitute an ex post facto law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.