From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Santana

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Apr 12, 2021
252 A.3d 590 (Pa. 2021)

Opinion

No. 654 MAL 2020

04-12-2021

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. David SANTANA, Respondent


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err in determining that [Respondent] was not required to register under SORNA even though he was already required to register for life in New York and relocated to Pennsylvania after the effective date of SORNA?
(2) Did the Superior Court err in finding an ex post facto violation even though [Respondent] was not disadvantaged any more than his lifetime registration he was already subject to under New York law?


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Santana

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Apr 12, 2021
252 A.3d 590 (Pa. 2021)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Santana

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner v. DAVID SANTANA, Respondent

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 12, 2021

Citations

252 A.3d 590 (Pa. 2021)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Santana

(2). Did the Superior Court err in finding a ex post facto violation even though Santana was not…