Com. v. Mohring, G. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-E05012-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. GREGORY SCOTT MOHRING, JR., Appellee No. 206 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered December 19, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): 4739 C 2010 CP-65-CR-0004739-2010 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES, J., GANTMAN, J., DONOHUE, J., ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J. FILED DECEMBER 18, 2013 Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered on December 19, 2012, which states that Appellee, Gregory Scott Mohring, is not required to register as a sex offender under Act 111 of 2011, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799, et. seq., also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred in determining that Mohring is not subject to the registration requirements of SORNA. After careful review, we conclude that the court did not err when it ordered specific enforcement of the parties plea bargain. Accordingly, we affirm. On February 18, 2011, Mohring entered a negotiated plea of guilty to indecent assault and corruption of minors. Neither of the crimes to which J-E05012-13 Mohring pled guilty required registration under Megan s Law, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9791, et. seq., at the time his plea was entered. The Commonwealth acknowledged on the record that non-registration was specifically discussed during Mohring s plea negotiations. N.T. Motions Hearing, 12/19/12, at 5 6. SORNA was enacted on December 20, 2011, and became effective on December 20, 2012. A conviction for indecent assault requires a defendant under correctional supervision on the effective date of SORNA to register with the State Police for 25 years. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(2). Therefore, Mohring ostensibly became subject to a new registration requirement under SORNA. Following a hearing on December 19, 2012, the trial court entered an order stating that Mohring was not subject to the registration requirements of SORNA. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal from that order. On October 21, 2013, this Court issued an order listing this case for consideration en banc. Similar orders were issued for several other cases presenting the same issue as in the instant case. On _____ , this Court filed its opinion in one of those cases, Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Super. 20__). This Court held in Hainesworth that where a defendant negotiated for non-registration as a term of his plea bargain, he was entitled to the benefit of that bargain. Accordingly, we affirmed the trial -2- J-E05012-13 court s order that Hainesworth was not required to register as a sex offender. We conclude that Mohring likewise entered into a plea bargain that contained a negotiated term of non-registration. Under the analysis adopted by this Court in Hainesworth, supra, we conclude it was not error for the trial court to order specific enforcement of Mohring s bargain, and we affirm the trial court s order. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/18/2013 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
