J-A19034-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JUAN ANTHONY SERRANO,
Appellant No. 3785 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 16, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division
at No(s):CP-45-CR-0001047-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
Appellant, Juan Anthony Serrano, appeals from judgment of sentence
of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas ordering him to serve an
aggregate twenty-six to eighty-four months’ imprisonment and classifying
him as a Tier III sexual offender based on his guilty plea to two counts of
possession of child pornography.1 Appellant claims that (1) the sexual
abuse of children enhancement of the Sentencing Guidelines is
unconstitutional, (2) the trial court’s sentence is manifestly unreasonable,
and (3) he should have been classified as a Tier I offender.2 We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand this case for the entry of an order
classifying Appellant as a Tier I offender.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).
2
We have reordered the arguments set forth in Appellant’s Brief.
J-A19034-16
The Honorable Jonathan Mark thoroughly addressed Appellant’s issues
in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and found that (1) Appellant’s constitutional
challenge to the sentencing enhancement was waived, (2) Appellant’s
sentencing challenge did not raise a substantial question and in any event,
did not warrant relief, and (3) Appellant’s classification as a Tier III offender
was required by this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Merolla, 909
A.2d 337 (Pa. Super. 2006). See Trial Ct. Op., 2/1/16, 5-18. We discern no
error or abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s consideration of Appellant’s
first two challenges and affirm based on the court’s opinion. See id. at 8-10
(discussing waiver of Appellant’s constitutional challenge), 11-18 (discussing
Appellant’s discretionary aspect of sentence challenge).
As to Appellant’s third challenge, in which he contests his classification
as Tier III sexual offender under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(d)(16), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided Commonwealth v. Lutz-
Morrison, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 4273555 (Pa. Aug. 15, 2016), and A.S.
v. Pa. State Police, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 4273568 (Pa. Aug. 15, 2016).
In light of the clarification provided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it is
apparent that Appellant must be classified as a Tier I offender.3 See Lutz-
Morrison, ___ A.3d at ___, 2016 WL 4273555 at *2 (holding a Tier III
classification “requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger
3
The Commonwealth agrees that relief is due in light of Lutz-Morrison.
-2-
J-A19034-16
lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to a fifteen- or
twenty-five-year period of registration”).
Thus, we affirm the conviction, but reverse Appellant’s classification as
a Tier III offender. Appellant shall be classified as a Tier I offender. See 42
Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(b)(9).
Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and reversed in part. Case
remanded for the entry of an order classifying Appellant as a Tier I offender.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2016
-3-