Background
[J-85-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 81 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 380 MDA : 2023 dated January 8, 2024, v. : Affirming and Remanding the : Judgment of Sentence of the : Dauphin County Court of Common MICHAEL DEAN OSMAN, : Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP- : 22-CR-0001818-2020 dated Appellant : November 30, 2022 : : ARGUED: October 8, 2025 OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: July 21, 2026 Under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 1 sex offenses are “classified in a three-tiered system composed of Tier I sexual offenses, Tier II sexual offenses and Tier III sexual offenses.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(a). In this appeal, we consider the application of Section 9799.14(d)(16), which assigns the most serious tier classification under SORNA (Tier III) to an offender who accumulates “[t]wo or more convictions of offenses listed as Tier I or Tier II sexual offenses.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14(d)(16).
Background In August 2022, a jury convicted Osman of corruption of minors, unlawful contact with a minor, and indecent assault. 3 Prior to sentencing, Osman was evaluated by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board, which determined that Osman did not meet the statutory criteria of a sexually violent predator. A sentencing Tier II offenses require registration periods of ten and twenty-five years, respectively. Id. § 9799.15(a)(1), (2). 3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301, 6318, 3126. The jury acquitted Osman of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent exposure stemming from the same criminal information. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3123, 3127. The facts underlying Osman’s convictions are undisputed and irrelevant to this appeal. [J-85-2025] – 2 hearing followed on November 30, 2022. For corruption of minors, the court imposed a sentence of one to three years of incarceration. For unlawful contact and indecent assault, the court initially sentenced Osman to concurrent terms of one to three years of incarceration and three to twelve months of incarceration, respectively. Immediately after that sentence was announced, however, the prosecutor advised the court that Osman was also subject to a consecutive, three-year term of probation. 4 Id. at 15. The court agreed and orally amended the sentence for unlawful contact, replacing the concurrent term of one to three years of incarceration with a three-year probation term to run consecutive to the sentence for corruption of minors. 5 Id. at 16. Osman filed a timely notice of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Conclusion Applying our holding in Lutz-Morrison to the facts of this case, Osman was illegally sentenced under Section 9718.5(a). The Superior Court erred in concluding otherwise, and we reverse that portion of its decision. However, because our disposition disrupts the sentencing scheme imposed by the trial court, we remand to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the trial court for resentencing. Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. Justice Dougherty files a concurring opinion. Justice Brobson files a concurring opinion. Justice Wecht files a dissenting opinion in which Justice Mundy joins. [J-85-2025] – 24 [J-85-2025] [MO: Donohue, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 81 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 380 MDA : 2023 dated January 8, 2024, v. : Affirming and Remanding the : Judgment of Sentence of the : Dauphin County Court of MICHAEL DEAN OSMAN, : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, : at No. CP-22-CR-0001818-2020 Appellant : dated November 30, 2022 : : ARGUED: October 8, 2025 CONCURRING OPINION JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: July 21, 2026 I join the majority opinion. I write separately to emphasize that while 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.14 is a recidivist sentencing statute, 42 Pa.C.S. §9718.5 is not. As the majority correctly holds, pursuant to this Court’s binding decision in Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2016), “Osman was illegally sentenced under Section 9718.5(a).” Majority Opinion at 24.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- Conclusion Applying our holding in Lutz-Morrison to the facts of this case, Osman was illegally sentenced under Section 9718.5(a).
- The Superior Court erred in concluding otherwise, and we reverse that portion of its decision.
- However, because our disposition disrupts the sentencing scheme imposed by the trial court, we remand to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the trial court for resentencing.
Why It Matters
The Superior Court erred in concluding otherwise, and we reverse that portion of its decision. Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.