IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 457 WAL 2016
:
Respondent :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Unpublished Memorandum and
v. : Order of the Superior Court at No.
: 298 WDA 2015 entered on June 22,
: 2016, affirming the PCRA Order of
ROBERT POLZER, : the Allegheny County Court of
: Common Pleas at No. CP-02-CR-
Petitioner : 0013546-2008 entered on December
15, 2014
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2018, the Motion to Amend Appendix C is
GRANTED. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue
set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issues. The issue, as stated by
Petitioner, is:
Whether the appellate Superior Court erred in its findings and
conclusions, and the PCRA court committed legal error in denying
Petitioner’s claim that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act (SORNA) under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9799, i.e., §§9799.15(e) and
(e)(3) violate the due process clause of the Fifth and the Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the due process
rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 1, §1, and Art. 1, §9,
and, therefore, violate the prohibition of the Ex Post Facto Clauses
to the United States Constitution, Art. 1, §10, Clause 1, and the
Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 1, §17, where Petitioner is clearly not
designated as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) to justify and
warrant such progressively rigid conditions and “quarterly in-person”
reporting requirements previously subject only to those deemed an
SVP, whereas, SORNA’S irrebuttable presumption that all sexual
offenders pose a high risk of reoffending violates procedural and
substantive due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
as such, SORNA’s Internet notification provision and quarterly
verification requirements constitute an ex post facto law under the
Pennsylvania Constitution?
The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to
the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189
(Pa. 2017).
[457 WAL 2016] - 2