Commonwealth v. Lacombe; Commonwealth v. Witmayer

Summary

This is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Wecht of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in consolidated appeals involving the retroactive application of Subchapter I of Pennsylvania's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Justice Wecht agrees that the courts had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenges but concludes that Subchapter I remains punitive in effect and therefore violates the federal and Pennsylvania Ex Post Facto Clauses when applied retroactively.

Holdings

1. The courts had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenges, and Lacombe was not required to pursue relief exclusively under the PCRA.
2. The General Assembly intended Subchapter I to establish a civil regulatory scheme rather than a punitive one.
3. Subchapter I remains punitive in effect because it imposes affirmative restraints, resembles historically recognized punishment, promotes deterrence and retribution, and is excessive in relation to its stated regulatory purpose.
4. Because Subchapter I is punitive in effect and applies retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment or operative date, its application to Lacombe and Witmayer violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the courts had jurisdiction to consider challenges to Subchapter I through the procedural mechanisms used by Lacombe and Witmayer.
2. Whether the retroactive application of Subchapter I is punitive in effect under the Mendoza-Martinez factors and therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

Disposition

reversed