Whether the PCRA court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when the PCRA court denied the PCRA etition raising the whether had to register under SORNA, now Act 10, when it violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution and in violation of Butler, when the court failed to vacate the finding that is a sexually violent predatorīrief for Appellant at 5-6 (footnote added). Whether the PCRA court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when the PCRA court denied the PCRA etition raising the whether had to register under SORNA, now Act 10, when it violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution violating his protected right to reputationĤ.
Whether the PCRA court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when the PCRA court denied the PCRA etition raising the whether had to register under SORNA, now Act 10, when it violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution since violating the ex po facto provisionsģ. Sic] had to register under SORNA, now Act 10, when it violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution to due process to a right to hearing and a right to a jury determination before having to register to a higher Punishment when he was sentenced under Megan's Law which has expiredĢ. Whether the PCRA court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when the PCRA court denied the PCRA etition raising the whether [ Schneider now presents the following issues for our review:ġ. 1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal. Schneider subsequently filed a timely Notice of Appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. Muniz, 164 A.3d at 1193, 1223.Īfter a hearing, by an Order entered on May 30, 2018, the PCRA court denied Schneider's PCRA Petition.
In Muniz, our Supreme Court held that SORNA's registration requirements constitute criminal punishment, and therefore, their retroactive application to increase a sexual offender's term of registration violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The PCRA court thereafter appointed Schneider counsel, who filed an Amended PCRA Petition, requesting a PCRA hearing on Schneider's claim. 2017), retroactive application of SORNA's registration requirements to Schneider's convictions rendered this component of his sentence unlawful. Therein, he asserted that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v.
On September 14, 2017, Schneider filed a pro se PCRA Petition. §§ 6301(a)(1), 3125(a)(7), 3122.1, 3126(a)(8), 4304(a).Įffective December 20, 2012, approximately one year after Schneider's SVP classification, Megan's Law was replaced by the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"). Schneider did not appeal his judgment of sentence.ġ8 Pa.C.S.A. Schneider was also found to be a sexually violent predator ("SVP"), and, notably to this appeal, was subject to a period of lifetime registration and reporting, pursuant to Megan's Law II.
On the same date, the trial court sentenced Schneider to an aggregate term of 57 months to 22 years in prison. On January 31, 2012, Schneider pled guilty to three counts of corruption of minors, and one count each of aggravated indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, statutory sexual assault, indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age, and endangering the welfare of children. Gerald Russell Schneider ("Schneider") appeals from the Order denying his first Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 65.37Īppeal from the PCRA Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango CountyĬriminal Division at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000103-2011 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P.