J-S18029-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: W.T.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: W.T.H., A MINOR : No. 1560 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-31-JV-0000047-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: W.T.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: W.T.H. : No. 1561 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-31-JV-0000068-2011
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 22, 2020
Appellant, W.T.H., appeals from the orders entered in the Huntington
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which continued for one
year Appellant’s involuntary commitment to a residential sexual offender
treatment facility per 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6401-6409 (“Act 21”). On June 28,
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S18029-20
2013, the juvenile court adjudicated Appellant delinquent for involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) with a child and false reports to law
enforcement authorities at Docket No. JV-0068-2011. The trial court later
issued a dispositional and placement order, which this Court affirmed on April
29, 2014. See In re W.T.H., 102 A.3d 546 (Pa.Super. 2014) (unpublished
memorandum). While in placement, Appellant committed additional sexual
offenses. At Docket No. JV-0047-2016, the trial court adjudicated Appellant
delinquent for indecent exposure, and continued Appellant’s placement at
Docket No. JV-0068-2011. On August 10, 2018, the trial court adjudicated
Appellant a sexually violent delinquent child (“SVDC”) and committed him to
one year of involuntary sexual offender treatment per Act 21. On September
5, 2019, the juvenile court conducted an Act 21 review hearing. That same
day, the court continued Appellant’s Act 21 placement for an additional year
at both docket numbers. Appellant timely filed separate notices of appeal at
each docket number on September 26, 2019. The court ordered Appellant on
September 30, 2019, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied. This Court
consolidated the appeals sua sponte on October 23, 2019.
In his only issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the validity of his SVDC
status and the constitutionality of Act 21 in light of Commonwealth v.
Muniz, 640 Pa. 699, 164 A.3d 1189 (2017), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 138
S.Ct. 925, 200 L.Ed.2d 213 (2018) (holding registration requirements under
-2-
J-S18029-20
Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) constitute
criminal punishment) and Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.3d 1212
(Pa.Super. 2017) (“Butler I”) (holding provision of SORNA which requires
court to designate defendant sexually violent predator (“SVP”) by clear and
convincing evidence violates federal and state constitutions because it
increases defendant’s criminal penalty without fact-finder making necessary
factual findings beyond reasonable doubt). While Appellant’s appeal was
pending, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Butler I. See
Commonwealth v. Butler, 25 WAP 2018, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___, 2020
WL 1466299 (Pa. filed March 26, 2020) (“Butler II”) (providing SVP
registration, notification, and counseling requirements do not constitute
criminal punishment, and thus, adjudication of SVPs by clear and convincing
evidence standard is constitutionally permissible).
Also while Appellant’s case was pending on appeal, our Supreme Court
addressed the constitutionality of Act 21 in light of Muniz and Butler I in In
re H.R., 41 MAP 2019, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 1542422 (Pa.
filed April 1, 2020), and this Court en banc considered the same issue in In
re J.C., ___ A.3d ___, 2020 PA Super 115 (en banc) (filed May 13, 2020).
Consistent with Butler II, our Supreme Court held Act 21’s provisions do not
amount to criminal punishment. In re H.R., supra. See also In re J.C.,
supra (holding same). Therefore, Act 21’s mechanism of adjudicating SVDCs
by a clear and convincing evidence standard is constitutionally sound. In re
-3-
J-S18029-20
H.R., supra; In re J.C., supra. In light of the foregoing, Appellant’s sole
issue on appeal merits no relief. Accordingly, we affirm.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/22/2020
-4-
In the Int. of: W.T.H., Appeal of: W.T.H.
Combined Opinion