J. A24045/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
IVAN ZOOK, : No. 1399 MDA 2017
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 7, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0004635-2016
BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2019
Ivan Zook appeals from the August 7, 2017 judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County after he entered
guilty pleas to one count each of rape and indecent assault of persons less
than 13 years of age and two counts each of indecent assault of persons less
than 16 years of age and incest.1 In light of our recent decision in
Commonwealth v. Haines, A.3d , 2019 PA Super 329 (Pa.Super.
filed October 30, 2019), we affirm in part and vacate in part.
The trial court set forth the following:
[Appellant] (D.O.B. 02/04/1992) committed his
crimes between the years of 2005 and 2007 against
[the minor female victims born in June 2000 and
October 1998]. [Appellant] was sentenced to an
aggregate term of two (2) to six (6) years of
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3126(a)(7), 3126(a)(8), and 4302, respectively.
J. A24045/18
incarceration and a consecutive term of two (2) years
of probation. At the time of his sentencing,
[appellant] was notified that he would be required to
register as a sex offender for his lifetime pursuant to
[Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA),] 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10
et seq. Prior to that sentencing, [appellant] had filed
a memorandum seeking to be excluded from sex
offender registration requirements. [Appellant]
renewed that request in a timely post-sentence
motion that was denied on September 5, 2017.
[Appellant] filed his notice of appeal on September 6,
2017.
Trial court opinion, 10/30/17 at 2.
The record reflects that the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s
post sentence motion to strike the imposition of the
registration and verification requirements under
[SORNA]?
Appellant’s brief at 4 (full capitalization omitted).
“Because this issue presents a question of law, our standard of review
is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Horning,
193 A.3d 411, 414 (Pa.Super. 2018).
In Haines, we recently held that our supreme court’s holding in
In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014), that imposition of lifetime registration
requirements pursuant to SORNA on juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent
of certain crimes constitutes a violation of the juvenile offenders’ due process
-2-
J. A24045/18
rights through the use of the irrebuttable presumption of the risk of
reoffending, applies to those defendants who committed their offenses as
juveniles but were convicted as adults. Haines, supra. Here, appellant was
13, 14, and 15 years old when he committed the sexual offenses. Like the
defendant in Haines, had appellant been adjudicated delinquent at that time,
no registration requirements would have applied to him. Also like the
defendant in Haines, appellant’s subsequent conviction of the sexual offenses
when he was an adult does not diminish the fact that he was a juvenile when
he committed the offenses and, consequently, that he should not be held to
an irrebuttable presumption of reoffending at age 25. Therefore, we vacate
that part of appellant’s sentence that required him to register as a sex offender
for his lifetime pursuant to SORNA.
Judgment of sentence vacated in part and affirmed in part. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/18/2019
-3-