Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg. Photo: Google

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld an order keeping a sex offender who was involuntarily committed as a juvenile in the institution treating him.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Anne Lazarus and Dan Pellegrini rejected A.M.B's appeal of a Bedford County court's denial of his motion to vacate his commitment.

According to Bowes' opinion, A.M.B. was charged as a juvenile for sexually assaulting an intellectually disabled woman in 2011 and was involuntarily committed. In 2014, as he approached his 20th birthday, an Act 21 hearing was held to determine if his commitment should continue.

Act 21, also known as Court-Ordered Involuntary Treatment of Certain Sexually Violent Persons statute, allows a court to order involuntary commitment if it is shown "by clear and convincing evidence[,] that the person has a mental abnormality or personality disorder which results in serious difficulty in controlling sexually violent behavior that makes the person likely to engage in an act of sexual violence."

Several doctors testified that A.M.B. suffered from a permanent personality disorder and would have difficulty controlling his dangerous sexual impulses if released, according to Bowes. A.M.B. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, but the court ruled against him. His involuntary commitment was renewed after every subsequent annual hearing, according to the decision.

In 2018, the Superior Court published a ruling finding that Act 21 was unconstitutional. However, a subsequent en banc rehearing of the matter resulted in the court reestablishing the constitutionality of Act 21.

In the time between the two decisions regarding Act 21, A.M.B. filed an appeal claiming his commitment was unconstitutional because the statute is punitive in nature.

But after A.M.B.'s appeal was filed to the Superior Court, the state Supreme Court ruled that involuntary commitment for sex offenders was not punitive.

"Appellant challenges the validity of his SVDC status on the constitutional grounds that Act 21's requirements constitute punishment necessitating that all relevant factual findings are made beyond a reasonable doubt," Bowes said. "In light of the foregoing precedent, we disagree. Our Supreme Court has spoken on this issue and its holding is fatal to appellant's position. Appellant has not offered any additional analysis to persuade us otherwise. Consequently, appellant's constitutional challenges to Act 21 are meritless and the trial court did not err by refusing to grant appellant's motion."

A.M.B. is represented by public defender Karen Ritchey, who did not return a call seeking comment.

Bedford County District Attorney Lesley Childers-Potts, representing the commonwealth, did not respond to a request for comment.