Com. v. Seese, R. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A03004-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RYAN JAMES SEESE Appellant No. 319 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order January 16, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002751-2010 CP-22-CR-0004884-2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2014 Appellant, Ryan James Seese, appeals from the order dated January Motion to Modify Sentence, which we treat as a Habeas Corpus petition. On appeal, Seese asserts that the trial court erred in holding that he was subject to mandatory registration under Notification Act. After careful review, we reverse.1 ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. Ex parte Moti with this Court. A review of this Motion indicates that it is merely a reiteration of the arguments raised in Sees deny the motion as moot, given the resolution of this appeal. 1 J-A03004-14 In 2010, Seese pled guilty to two counts of Invasion of Privacy, one count of criminal trespass, two counts of disorderly conduct, and pled nolo contendere to one count of invasion of privacy, all arising from allegations that Seese had entered female restrooms to watch adult women and minor girls using toilets. On December 28, 2010, the trial court sentenced Seese to an aggregate term of imprisonment of one month to twenty-three and one half months, to b an appeal from his judgment of sentence. It is undisputed that as a result of these guilty pleas, Seese was not subject to the registration requirements set forth in 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9791, et seq., commonly referred to as On December 19, 2012, in anticipation of the imposition of registration requirements of SORNA, Seese filed a motion to modify sentence with the trial court. In his motion, Seese asserted that application of the registration requirements under his circumstances constituted violations of his rights against ex post facto laws, right to due process, and right to equal protection. Seese requested discovery from the Commonwealth regarding similarly situated convicts and a hearing on his claims. hearing. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Seese raises five issues for our review: -2- On January 16, J-A03004-14 1. Did the trial court err not granting App hearing to make proper and complete record of issues and facts described therein? 2. right to equal protection under the law? 3. Did the trial court err by not issuing an order compelling the 4. failing to identify permissible departure to avoid application of law ex post facto that violates Appellant process? 5. Did trial court err by applying the wrong standard in review knowing new law was being applied retroactively to Appellant? Initially, we address our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The trial court -sentence motion under Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 720. However, Rule 720 requires that all post-sentence motions be filed within 10 days of the imposition of sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 720(A)(1), 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Seese did not file his motion to modify until nearly 2 years after the imposition of sentence, and as such, the trial -sentence motion. lateral relief. In addressing collateral attacks, we first determine whether the See Commonwealth v. West n brought under the PCRA, then habeas corpus relief would be unavailable because the PCRA subsumes the remedy -3- J-A03004-14 of habeas corpus dispositive factor is whether the underlying claim is cognizable under the PCRA; if so, a petitioner is limited to seeking relief pursuant to the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231, 1233 (Pa. Super. 2004). While it is rare for a claim to fall outside the ambit of the PCRA, see Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2010) Commonwealth v. Masker, 34 A.3d 841, 843 (Pa. Super. 2011). Challenges to the collateral consequences of convictions are not cognizable under the PCRA. See id., at 844. Registration requirement for sexual offenders have repeatedly been found to be collateral consequences of a conviction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Leidig sentence, which challenges the imposition of reporting requirements under SORNA, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the PCRA. -sentence motion nor a PCRA petition, we shall treat it as a petition for habeas corpus. habeas corpus is limited to Rivera v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). A trial court abuses its -4- J-A03004-14 discretion if it misapplied the law or exercised its discretion in a manner lacking reason. See id. We need not reach any of Se registration requirements. See 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9799.13(3.1)(ii)(A). As a result, Seese is not required to register. Order reversed. Ex parte Motion to Request Declaratory Relief denied. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/10/2014 -5-

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.