A convicted child molester won his sentencing appeal and will not have to retroactively register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

The sentence ordering Jose M. Muniz to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life violates the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions, ruled the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The 5-1 decision delivered Wednesday reversed the Superior Court's ruling and vacated the portion of Muniz's sentence requiring him to register under Pennsylvania's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2012.

In 2005, Muniz was convicted of molesting a 12-year-old girl in Cumberland County's Upper Allen Township. He was scheduled for sentencing in May of 2007, but he failed to appear in court. Muniz remained at large until his October 2014 arrest in Rhode Island on unrelated charges.

Muniz's argument: The life-time punishment was unconstitutional because the new sex offender laws were different than when he was convicted. He unsuccessfully appealed his case in Cumberland County Court and then with the state's superior court before it was taken on by the Supreme Court and arguments were heard in December 2016.

Muniz argued to the high court that SORNA unconstitutionally increases the length of registration and notification requirements for sex offenders subject to a retroactive application. He added that though legislators declared SORNA is not punitive, the registration requirements are indeed punitive and thus violates the Pennsylvania Constitution when applied to someone like him whose conviction predated the enactment of the law.

Commonwealth attorneys argued that SORNA is not punishment as it addresses a major public concern of recidivism among sex offenders and therefore does not violate ex post facto rights. Additionally, the attorneys said there is a general presumption that all lawfully enacted statutes are constitutional.

In the 55-page ruling penned by Justice Kevin Dougherty, the court said the Pennsylvania Constitution's ex post facto clause provides greater protections than the federal counterpart. It cited the constitutional provision's text on ex post facto laws, the history of the provision, including case law, case law from other states and policy considerations.

Muniz's peculiar case was an example of an ex post facto rights decision applying terms to his sentence based on the date he was sentenced and not his conviction. The court's ruling ultimately decided he should be punished under the laws when he should have been sentenced in 2007, rather than when he was sentenced in 2014.

Justice David Wecht wrote a concurring opinion cautioning against jumping to the conclusion that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides the same ex post facto protections as the U.S. Constitution. The lone dissenter, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, wrote that SORNA does not impose punishment and as a result does not violate federal or state constitutions' ex post facto clauses.

According to Associated Press reports, a spokesman for the state police, which operates the Pennsylvania Megan's Law website, said the decision was being reviewed and offered no immediate comment. Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed said the ruling could produce a large number of appeals by Megan's Law registrants, arguing the decision also applies to them.

The full decision can be read here.

Wecht's concurring opinion can be read here.

Saylor's dissent can be read here.

Justice Sally Updyke Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.