Com. v. Orlowski, B. ( 2015 )

J-S19026-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID GLENN WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 2338 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 30, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002487-2013
BEFORE: STABILE, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2015
David Glenn Williams (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas following his
guilty plea conviction for child pornography.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, dated
October 14, 2014 (“Trial Court Opinion”), pp. 1-4. Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
I. WHETHER SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO
SUPPORT [SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR (“SVP”)]
CLASSIFICATION OF APPELLANT WHERE APPELLANT HAD
A HISTORY OF VIEWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, HAD ONE
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).
J-S19026-15
PRIOR CONVICTION FOR STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT
AND NO HISTORY OF FAILED TREATMENT?
II. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN CLASSIFYING APPELLANT AS AN SVP
WHERE IT DID NOT INDICATE ITS REASONS, WHERE
THERE WAS A LACK OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE
STATUTORY FACTORS?
Appellant’s Brief, p. 5.
Our review of Appellant’s SVP status implicates the following
principles:
The determination of a defendant’s SVP status may only be
made following an assessment by the Board and hearing before
the trial court. In order to affirm an SVP designation, we, as a
reviewing court, must be able to conclude that the fact-finder
found clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a
sexually violent predator.
As with any sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view all
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. We will reverse a trial court’s
determination of SVP status only if the Commonwealth has not
presented clear and convincing evidence that each element of
the statute has been satisfied.
Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 941-42 (Pa.Super.2010).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan
Mark, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, pp. 4-8) (finding Commonwealth
proved Appellant was an SVP with clear and convincing evidence, including
the uncontradicted assessment of the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board’s
-2-
J-S19026-15
counselor and evaluator, which considered all relevant factors listed in 42
Pa.C.S. § 9799.24, including Appellant’s personal and criminal history and
diagnosis of other specified paraphilic disorder, in determining Appellant’s
SVP status). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/21/2015
-3-