From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Reed

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Apr 22, 2016
135 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2016)

Opinion

No. 557 WAL 2014.

04-22-2016

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Thomas M. REED, Petitioner.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

1) Are the recent SORNA statutes (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10, 9799.13 and 9799.14

and related provisions) punitive in nature and do they violate the ex post facto provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

2) Do the SORNA statutes violate fundamental due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ?

3) Do the SORNA statutes violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Pennsylvania Constitution?

4) Was lifetime Megan's Law registration not part of petitioner's original guilty plea, and therefore, should petitioner's original plea, which only called for a ten-year Megan's Law requirement, be enforced?

The Prothonotary is directed to schedule briefing and argument in this matter together with the following matters presenting related issues: Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 181 MAL 2015 and Commonwealth v. Muniz, 684 MAL 2015.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Reed

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Apr 22, 2016
135 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Reed

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. THOMAS M. REED, Petitioner

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 22, 2016

Citations

135 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2016)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Martinez

Indeed, this Court recently granted allocatur to consider that question. Commonwealth v. Reed, 135 A.3d 177…

Commonwealth v. Brown

The question of whether SORNA registration is punitive or a collateral consequence to one's criminal sentence…