234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020)
Pennsylvania’s rewritten scheme for older offenses, Subchapter I, is not punishment and can apply retroactively.
Good law. Still followed. Later cases may have narrowed it — see Scope. Final word on that state’s own law and constitution — in that state only.
After Muniz, Pennsylvania moved people whose offenses fell between 1996 and 2012 into Subchapter I, with lighter terms: annual in-person reporting, ten-year registration for many offenses, and a petition for removal after 25 years for lifetime registrants. Lacombe and Witmayer challenged it.
In an opinion by Justice Dougherty, the court held that Subchapter I does not constitute criminal punishment, so its retroactive application is not ex post facto. It also held that the post-conviction relief statute is not the only way to challenge registration requirements.
Lacombe shows the usual next step after a state court finds a registry punitive: the legislature rewrites the law, and the rewrite is upheld.
It judged Subchapter I only. It did not revisit Muniz, and it did not address the current SORNA’s application to later offenses.
Last verified against the sources above on September 30, 2026.
These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.