Skip to main content

Com. v. Smith, S.

Citations

  • 240 A.3d 654
  • 2020 Pa. Super. 237

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that trial court erred in treating a pleading seeking removal from SORNA registry requirements as an untimely PCRA petition
  • holding that substantive claims challenging the application of SORNA II’s lifetime registration requirements are not cognizable under the PCRA and thus, not subject to its time-bar
  • holding that substantive claims challenging the application of SORNA II’s lifetime registration requirements are not cognizable under the PCRA, and thus, not subject to its time-bar
  • concluding that substantive claims challenging the application of SORNA’s lifetime registration requirements are not cognizable under the PCRA and are not subject to the PCRA’s time bar
  • holding that, following Lacombe, “substantive claims challenging the application of Subchapter I of SORNA II’s lifetime registration requirements are not cognizable under the PCRA and, thus, not subject to its time-bar”
  • noting that our Supreme Court has deemed Subchapter I of SORNA to be non-punitive; “Non-punitive, administrative requirements are merely collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dubow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.