J-A07033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GLENN TAULTON
Appellant No. 1211 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order June 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0006238-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MARCH 6, 2015
Appellant, Glenn Taulton, appeals from the June 24, 2014 order,
denying his “Petition Seeking Enforcement of Plea Agreement.” After careful
review, we affirm.
Briefly, on January 4, 2010, Appellant pled guilty to one count each of
indecent assault and endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC)1 and was
sentenced to two years’ probation, plus a ten-year sex offender registration
term that same day. On December 20, 2012, Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) went into effect, retroactively
requiring lifetime registration. Appellant filed a “Petition Seeking
Enforcement of Plea Agreement” on December 18, 2013, along with a
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7) and 4304(a), respectively.
J-A07033-15
supplemental petition on June 19, 2014. On June 24, 2014, the trial court
entered an order denying the petitions. On July 21, 2014, Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal.2
Appellant raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that he is
entitled to the benefit of his plea bargain, i.e., the original ten-year
registration term pursuant to this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v.
Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), appeal denied, 95
A.3d 276 (Pa. 2014). Appellant’s Brief at 25. Second, Appellant avers the
retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the
Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Id. at 26.
Turning to Appellant’s first issue, assuming arguendo that Appellant
would be entitled to relief under Hainesworth, Appellant acknowledges that
he has since violated the terms of his probation. Id. at 17. This Court
recently held that when this occurs, the defendant has breached the plea
agreement and therefore Hainesworth does not apply. Commonwealth
v. Partee, 86 A.3d 245, 250 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 97 A.3d 744
(Pa. 2014). This Court also recently held the retroactive application of
____________________________________________
2
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-2-
J-A07033-15
SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses.3 Commonwealth v.
Perez, 97 A.3d 747, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014). Appellant acknowledges both
Partee and Perez, but also argues they were wrongly decided. Appellant’s
Brief at 18, 29-30. It is axiomatic that a three-judge panel is bound by
previous panel opinions unless overruled by this Court sitting en banc, our
Supreme Court, or the United States Supreme Court. Commonwealth v.
Pepe, 897 A.2d 463, 465 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
Pepe v. Pennsylvania, 566 U.S. 881 (2008). As a result, Appellant is not
entitled to relief.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude both of Appellant’s issues are
devoid of merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s June 24, 2014 order is
affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/6/2015
____________________________________________
3
As in Perez, Appellant does not argue that the Pennsylvania Constitution
provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution. See generally
Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 895 (Pa. 1991).
-3-