J-S20009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ARTHUR F. GUPTON : : Appellant : No. 2892 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004847-2012

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.* CONCURRING STATEMENT BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 I am writing separately from my colleagues to state my agreement with the analysis of Appellant’s claim on the merits. I believe Appellant’s single issue was not rendered unreviewable by the multiple erroneous references to the denial of PCRA relief in the brief. The issue briefed on appeal is the propriety of Appellant’s SVP designation and registration and reporting requirements under Subchapter I of SORNA, and not any hypothetical PCRA ruling. The timely-filed notice of appeal refers to the April 20, 2022 judgement of sentence following the remand hearing, and the Rule 1925(b) Statement includes the issue briefed, albeit not with ideal clarity.

Although reviewable, Appellant’s argument is meritless. He asks this Court to follow the trial court ruling in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, CP-CR- ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S29040-23

0001570-2016 (Chester Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 23, 2022) (vacated and under review before the Supreme Court at Docket No. 97 MAP 2022), rather than our Supreme Court’s directly applicable holdings in Commonwealth v. Butler, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020) (Butler II), or Commonwealth v. Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020). Appellant’s suggestion is both impermissible for an intermediate appellate court, and unpersuasive even in theory. The scope of the court of common pleas opinion in Torsilieri was limited to Subchapter H, whereas Appellant comes under Subchapter I. It is therefore inapplicable to him.

I agree that the trial court did not err in applying the Supreme Court’s most recent decisions in Butler II and Lacombe.

-2-