Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert W. Arnett

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considers whether a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act is an available mechanism for challenging the constitutionality of sex-offender registration requirements under Subchapter I of SORNA II. The Court explains that SORNA II is non-punitive and that the PCRA applies only to matters relating to a criminal conviction or sentence, making it unavailable for this type of challenge. The opinion also addresses the history of Pennsylvania’s sex-offender registration laws and the Court’s decisions in Lacombe and Torsilieri.

Holdings

1. The PCRA is not available to challenge the constitutionality of SORNA II's registration, reporting, and notification requirements because SORNA II is non-punitive and the challenged obligations do not relate to the petitioner's criminal conviction or sentence.
2. Torsilieri II controls the constitutional challenge to Subchapter I because Subchapters H and I are predicated on materially identical legislative presumptions that sexual offenders pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses. The lower court therefore erred in declaring Subchapter I unconstitutional.
3. The Court declined to decide whether habeas corpus or another non-PCRA mechanism is available to challenge SORNA II and did not dismiss the petition insofar as it constituted a habeas corpus petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Post Conviction Relief Act provides a mechanism to challenge the constitutionality of SORNA II's non-punitive registration and reporting requirements.
2. Whether Torsilieri II controls a constitutional challenge to Subchapter I of SORNA II based on the alleged irrebuttable presumption that sexual offenders pose a high risk of recidivism.
3. What disposition is appropriate where the PCRA is unavailable but the petition was also styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Disposition

vacated