Arkansas Sex Offender Assessment Committee v. Steven A. Sera , 2023 Ark. App. 239 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 239ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-21-291
SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT Opinion Delivered April 26, 2023
COMMITTEE
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH
V. DIVISION
[NO. 60CV-19-5654]
STEVEN A. SERA
APPELLEE HONORABLE HERBERT T. WRIGHT,
JUDGE
CIRCUIT COURT ORDER REVERSED;
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
DECISION AFFIRMED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
Appellant, Sex Offender Assessment Committee (SOAC), appeals the circuit court’s
order that reduced appellee Seven A. Sera’s community-notification risk level from Level 4
to Level 3. SOAC argues that the circuit court erred and that SOAC’s original assessment
at Level 4 is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm SOAC’s assessment at Level 4.
The circuit court’s order is reversed.
In 1997, Sera’s then wife, Nancy, discovered a videotape depicting Sera performing
sexual acts with or on different women. In the video, all the women appeared to be
unconscious; one of them was Nancy’s younger sister. Nancy also found a bottle of Rohypnol
pills in her husband’s luggage. Law enforcement contacted the women, and each one stated
that she did not consent to the sexual acts observed on film, nor did they consent to being
filmed. They each reported accepting drinks from Sera, after which they felt unwell and
could not remember anything until the next day. One of the women reported that Sera had
given her a drink, after which she blacked out and became ill. The next day, she went to her
doctor for drug testing, and her urine showed the presence of Rohypnol, commonly called a
date-rape drug because it is a powerful sedative known to cause blackouts, total muscle
relaxation, memory loss, stomach problems, and cramping.
In 1998 in Arkansas, Sera was convicted of three counts of introduction of a
controlled substance into the body of another person, two counts of kidnapping, one count
of first-degree sexual abuse, one count of attempted rape, and one count of rape. These
charges related to two different women in Arkansas. Those convictions were affirmed on
appeal, and Sera was ultimately denied federal habeas corpus relief. Sera pleaded guilty in
1999 in Texas for second-degree sexual assault of a woman there; he had drugged and then
anally penetrated the woman while videotaping the assault. In 2002, Sera pleaded guilty in
Missouri for multiple counts of felony sexual assault against a young woman to whom he was
related by marriage; Sera also videotaped his encounters with her at least once.1
1
All of the Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri crimes were committed in 1996. During
this time, Sera lived in Dallas, Texas, with his wife and daughter. Sera operated a lumber
company in Texas but traveled to Arkansas as part of his purchase of a lumber mill in
Warren, Arkansas. Regarding the Arkansas crimes, he met one woman at a bar, and he met
the other woman because she was married to one of Sera’s employees. The Texas charges
related to a woman Sera met in a Dallas restaurant. The Missouri charges relate to Nancy’s
sister, who was attending college in Springfield, Missouri.
2
In October 2017, as Sera approached an opportunity to request parole, Sera
underwent a Sex Offender Community Notification Assessment (SOCNA). The assessment
included a recitation of the detailed factual summary presented in Sera’s appeal to the
Arkansas Supreme Court in Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000). The supreme
court noted that the trial record contained 3,100 pages of pleadings, testimony, and exhibits,
so it took pains to provide a “thorough factual summary” in the opinion. The SOCNA
relied on an assessment done by a social worker and a psychologist who both reviewed a
summary of Sera’s history of criminal convictions and propensity to engage with adult
women whom he would later drug and rape. The two professionals noted Sera’s “high” risk
of reoffending and his classification as having an “unspecified paraphilic disorder.” SOAC
referred to Sera as “SDP,” meaning Sera was a sexually dangerous person. The assessment
also included an interview with Sera. The SOCNA set the community-notification
recommendation at Level 4.
In November 2017, Sera’s attorney appealed the SOCNA finding to SOAC. Sera
believed he should be assessed at Level 3, not Level 4. Sera acknowledged that these
accusations included four women regarding acts in three states, but he asserted that he
previously had consensual relationships with each of them, and they were all adults. Sera
dissected the SOCNA and took issue with many of its alleged facts, asserting that the women
were merely drunk (not drugged) when the alleged assaults occurred. Sera contended that
his own psychologist provided him an evaluation in 2003 that deemed him an essentially
3
normal person who should be considered favorably for parole, yet the State had not
performed its own psychological assessment.
SOAC considered Sera’s request under the administrative-review rules applicable to
registered sex offenders and assessed Sera at a Level 4. The assessments are made on a case-
by-case basis to determine the public risk posed by a sex offender and the appropriate level
of community notification. The assessments are civil in nature. SOAC recognized that Sera
was enrolled in the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program (RSVP), but his composite
risk scores were “high” and “moderate-high.” SOAC reviewed, among other things, all the
SOCNA-generated documents, the prosecutor’s report in the 1998 convictions, documents
related to both the Missouri and Texas guilty pleas, the supreme court’s decision upholding
Sera’s Arkansas convictions, and a recording of Sera’s 2017 assessment interview. 2 SOAC
found it appropriate for the SOCNA to rely on the supreme court’s analysis of the facts and
evidence in the Arkansas convictions and found it notable that Sera pleaded guilty to the
offenses that occurred in Texas and Missouri. SOAC noted that Sera had drugged women
and recorded himself performing sexual acts on them; the women verified having side effects
known to accompany the ingestion of Rohypnol; and the SOCNA had concluded that Sera
has an “Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder.” SOAC also stated that psychological testing is
2
In Sera’s assessment video, he admittedly put two sedatives in the drink of one
Arkansas victim “in a supreme act of arrogance” so that he could videotape having sex with
her, which was a “betrayal.” He also admitted drugging the other Arkansas woman to the
point that she could not walk without assistance. Sera, however, denied going through with
the sexual act and videotaping it.
4
not a required component to complete an assessment for these purposes. SOAC discounted
the validity and reliability of Sera’s 2003 psychological assessment, given the assessment’s
purpose in 2003 and his psychologist’s professional focus in the psycho-sexual arena or on
sexual offenders specifically. In sum, SOAC concluded that the record demonstrated that
(1) Sera employed a pattern of manipulation, drugs, and force in his offending; (2) he had
multiple victims and multiple offenses; and (3) he had strong antisocial personality
characteristics, all of which supported an assessment at Level 4.
Sera appealed to the circuit court, which reversed SOAC’s assessment. SOAC appeals
to our court.
This appeal is made pursuant to, and governed by, provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), Arkansas Code Annotated sections 25-15-201 et seq. (Repl. 2014 &
Supp. 2021), and the Sex Offender Registration Act, Arkansas Code Annotated sections 12-
12-901 et seq. (Repl. 2016 & Supp. 2021). The APA provides that an agency decision may
be reversed or modified if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation
of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3)
made upon unlawful procedure; or (4) affected by other error of law. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-
15-212(h) (Supp. 2021). The appellate court’s review is directed not toward the circuit court
but toward the decision of the agency. State Sex Offender Risk Assessment Comm. v. Wallace,
2013 Ark. App. 654.
5
Under the APA, it is not the role of either the circuit courts or the appellate courts
to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, the review is limited to ascertaining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s
decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212. Brown v. Sex
Offender Assessment Comm., 2014 Ark. App. 236. Id. We give the evidence its strongest
probative force in favor of the agency’s ruling. Sex Offender Assessment Comm. v. Cochran,
2019 Ark. App. 396, 587 S.W.3d 562. The question is not whether the evidence would have
supported a contrary finding but whether it would support the finding made. Id. Substantial
evidence is defined as valid, legal, and persuasive evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion and forces the mind to pass beyond conjecture.
Bolding v. Arkansas Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 2022 Ark. App. 275, 646 S.W.3d 696. Once
substantial evidence is found, it automatically follows that a decision cannot be classified as
unreasonable or arbitrary. Arkansas State Police Comm’n v. Smith, 338 Ark. 354, 994 S.W.2d
456 (1999).
As relevant to this appeal, the community-notification levels are described as follows:
Level 3: Typically offenders in this category have a history of repeat sexual offending,
and/or strong antisocial, violent or predatory personality characteristics. These are
individuals whose offense and criminal history require notification throughout the
community.
Level 4: Sexually Dangerous Person refers to a person who has been adjudicated
guilty of a sex offense or acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect of a sex
offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes
the person likely to engage in predatory sex offenses. The designation indicates that
the highest and most visible means of community notification is required.
6
004.00.4-14 Ark. Admin. Code (WL current through March 15, 2023). According to
Arkansas’s 2014 Adult Sex Offenders Guidelines, “Sexually Dangerous Person” status
should be considered for persons whose offenses involved multiple instances with multiple
victims. Id.Sera asserts that SOAC did not fully investigate all relevant materials, erroneously
failed to conduct its own psychological examination, and erroneously failed to review the
federal habeas proceedings (in which Sera ultimately did not prevail). Sera contends that
SOAC manifested laziness by not gathering and scouring every type of information available
and instead dragged the review process out for an inexplicable nineteen months before
rendering its decision. Sera also takes issue with the factual underpinnings of his crimes,
both admitted and litigated. Sera has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
Having reviewed this appeal under the proper standards, we hold that substantial
evidence supports SOAC’s assessment, so it automatically follows that its assessment cannot
be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary. See Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk
Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. 205, 307 S.W.3d 6. Sera repeatedly used a sedative to render
his multiple victims unconscious and incapable of consenting to the acts performed on or
with them. Sera used these women to videotape sexual acts for his own purposes, which
came to light only because his wife discovered the videos. In addition, two professionals
noted Sera has an “unspecified paraphilic disorder.” In these circumstances, we hold that
substantial evidence supports the community-notification level assigned by the agency.
The circuit court’s order is reversed; the agency’s decision is affirmed.
7
BARRETT, J., agrees.
BROWN, J., concurs.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Nga Mahfouz, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellant.
John Wesley Hall and Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellee.
8