Com. v. Williams, D. ( 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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-
··,,
,i Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY
FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2487 CR 2013
v.
APPEAL DOCKET NO.
DAVID GLENN WILLIAMS, 2338 EDA 2014
Defendant
OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
Following the denial of his post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence,
Defendant David Glenn Williams ("Defendant") filed an appeal from the judgment of
sentence entered on June 30, 2014. After the appeal was filed, we directed Defendant
to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant. to Pa.RAP. 1925(b).
Defendant complied. We now file this opinion in accordance with Pa.RAP. 1925(a).
The Affidavit of Probable Cause, the Pre-Sentence Investigation report ("PSI")
which was not corrected by Defendant, and our remarks at Defendant's sentencing
hearing provide a full recitation of the relevant factual and procedural history. In
summary:
On April 5, 2011, Defendant's co-worker, Darren Higdon Sr., went to the
Lehighton Pennsylvania State Police Barracks to speak with Trooper Patrick Finn
regarding child pornography supplied by Defendant to Higdon's son, and his son's
friend. Higdon gave Trooper Finn a thumb.drive containing child pornographic images
and videos which Defendant had given to Higdon's son when Defendant loaned his
computer to Higdon. Trooper Finn interviewed Defendant regarding the thumb drive.
1
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
Defendant admitted to downloading the videos of child pornography depicting 12 to 14
year-old females, confessed that he was attracted to and aroused by young females,
and stated that he masturbated to the videos. A computer analysis of the thumb drive
revealed six video files containing child pornography along with one deleted file of child
pornography.
On June 1, 2011, Defendant was arrested and charged in a separate matter with
sexually assaulting a 14 year-old girl. On March 6, 2012, he pied guilty to Statutory
Sexual Assault, a felony of the second degree. He was sentenced by this Court to 22
months to 1 O years in a State Correctional Institution. On June 10, 2013, Defendant was.
denied parole by the Board of Probation and Parole for failing to complete required Sex
Offenders Treatment.
On August 1, 2013, Defendant was charged in this case with six counts of Sexual
Abuse of Children for possession of the child pornography. On January 7, 2014, he pied
guilty to Sexual Abuse of Children, a felony of the third degree. As part of the plea, the
Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
After accepting the plea, we entered an order directing that our Probation
Department prepare a PSI report and that the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
(SOAB) conduct a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) assessment and file a report
containing its conclusions. In addition, a sentencing hearing was scheduled.
Prior to sentencing, SOAB issued a report identifying Defendant as an SVP.
Accordingly, we ordered that an SVP hearing be held immediately prior to the
sentencing hearing.
2
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
On June 30, 2014, the SVP hearing was convened as scheduled. During the
SVP hearing, the Commonwealth presented the SOAB report together with the
testimony of Paula Brust, MA, LPG, NCC, the evaluator who had authored the report.
(N.T., 6/30/14 at 4-18; SOAB Report). Based on her evaluation of all available
information, including Defendant's admission to viewing child pornography for decades,
the fact that he is aroused by young girls, his prior criminal history including his
conviction for Statutory Sexual Assault on a young girl, and his refusal to complete
sexual offender · treatment, Ms. Brust diagnosed Defendant as having a mental
abnormality or personality disorder, namely, Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder. (Id. at
9-13; SOAB Report at 7). Further, Ms. Brust found that Defendant exhibited predatory
behavior by, among other things, his inability to control self-defeating behaviors, the
escalation over time of his paraphilic behavior that has manifested itself in his searching
for, viewing, saving, and masturbating to child pornography for at least 20 years and
culminated with his preying upon a young girl for months and then sexual assaulting
her. (Id. at 9-13; SOAB report at 8-9). Based on these findings, Ms. Brust concluded
that Defendant met the criterion to be classified as an SVP. (Id. at 9-13; SOAB Report).
Defendant did not present testimony or evidence to contradict Ms. Brust's findings. (Id.
at 20).
After considering the evidence presented during the hearing, including the SOAB
report, we found that the Commonwealth had proven by clear and convincing evidence
that Defendant was an SVP. We found Ms. Brust to be credible, concluded that she
properly considered statutory SVP factors, and determined that her diagnoses and
conclusions were supported by both the facts and the law. (N.T., 6/30/2014, at 25-32).
----·-----· -····---·----···- ··-·
3
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
After the SVP hearing concluded, the sentencing hearing was convened. At the
conclusion of the hearing, we sentenced Defendant to incarceration of not less than 12
months nor more than 24 months. In addition, we classified Defendant as an SVP and
directed that he comply with the provisions of Megan's Law, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section
9799.10 et. seq. (Id. at 25-29; Order entered June 30, 2014).
Subsequently, Defendant filed a post-sentence motion asserting that we erred in
classifying him as an SVP. We denied Defendant's motion, and this appeal followed.
Reduced to basics, Defendant's two assignments of error contend that we erred
and abused our discretion by accepting the findings of SOAB and Ms. Brust and
classifying him as an SVP. This contention is based on Defendant's assertion that
SOAB "erroneously determined the Defendant to be a Sexually Violent Predator based
solely on his own admissions to viewing child pornography for a period of thirty years,
and engaging one time in a sexual relationshlp with a fourteen year old girl."
(Defendant's Rule 1925{b) Statement, 111). Defendant's assignments of error are
meritless.
Our Superior Court recently articulated the standard and scope of review to be
applied in a challenge to an SVP determination:
A challenge to a determination of SVP status requires us to
view the evidence:
[l]n the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. The reviewing court may not
weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment
for that of the trial court. The clear and
convincing standard requires evidence that is
so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to
enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear
conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the
precise facts [at] issue.
·----·- ·-------·---···-·-----·~-~-----~---
4
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20, 25
(Pa.Super.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). The scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v.
Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa.
614, 21 A.3d 1189 (2011). "[A]n expert's opinion, which is .
rendered to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, is
Itself evidence." Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935,
944 (Pa.Super.2010) (en bane), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 645,
12 A.3d 370 (2010) (emphasis in original).
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to
support an SVP designation requires the reviewing court to
accept the undiminished record of the case in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Meals,
590 Pa. 110, 119, 912 A.2d 213, 218 (2006). The reviewing
court must examine all of the Commonwealth's evidence
without consideration of its admissibility. Commonwealth v.
Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1035 (Pa.Super.2011). A successful
sufficiency challenge can lead to an outright grant of relief
such as a reversal of the SVP designation, whereas a
challenge to the admissibility of the expert's opinion and
testimony is an evidentiary question which, if successful, can
lead to a new SVP hearing. Commonwealth v. Sanford, 580
Pa. 604, 608-09, 863 A.2d 428, 431 (2004) (distinguishing
concepts of sufficiency of evidence versus admissibility of
evidence, but refusing to render any opinion on whether SVP
expert's "reliance on the affidavit of probable cause and the
charging documents somehow rendered her testimony
inadmissible as this issue is not before this court").
As a general rule, [the] standard of review of a
trial court's evidentiary ruling . . . is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion. An abuse of· discretion may not be
found merely because an appellate court might
have reached a different conclusion, but
requires a result of manifest
unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias,
or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be
clearly erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Dengler, 586 Pa. 54, 65, 890 A.2d 372,
379 (2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Our task in either scenario is one of review, not one of
reweighing or assessing the evidence in the first instance.
Meals, supra at 127, 912 A.2d at 223.
···--····
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (Pa. Super. 2014).
5
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
The current version of Megan's Law requires that the Commonwealth prove by
clear and convincing evidence that an individual is an SVP. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9799.24(e)(3). To deem an individual an SVP, the Commonwealth must first show that
the individual has been convicted of at least one sexually violent offense, as set forth in
42 · Pa.C.S.A Section 9799.14. Secondly, the Commonwealth must show that the
individual has "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him} likely to
engage in predatory sexually violent offenses." 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9799.12. When the
Commonwealth meets this burden, the trial court then makes the final determination on
the defendant's ·status as an SVP. See Commonwealth v. Prendes, supra;
Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624, 629 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 919
A.2d 954 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Kopicz, 840 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2003).
In this case, Defendant pied guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Child, a felony of the
third degree, which is a sexually violent offense listed in Section 9799.12. Thus, the first
element the Commonwealth was required to prove was undisputedly satisfied.
The second element the Commonwealth was required to prove is that Defendant
has "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him] likely to engage in
predatory sexually violent offenses." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12. The following elements
must be considered:
An assessment shall include, but not be limited to, an
examination of the following:
(1) Facts of the current offense, including:
i. Whether the offense involved multiple victims.
ii. Whether the individual exceeded the means
necessary to achieve the offense.
iii. The nature of the sexual contact with the victim.
iv. Relationship of the individual to the victim.
v. Age of the victim.
=-=====!!============~=========,
6
-'·--· ·---
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
vi. Whether the offense included a display of unusual
cruelty by the individual during the commission of
the crime.
vii. The mental capacity of the victim.
(2) Prior offense history, including:
i. The individual's prior criminal record.
ii. Whether the individual completed any prior
sentences.
iii. Whether the individual participated in available
programs for sexual offenders.
(3) Characteristics of the individual, including:
i. Age.
ii. Use of illegal drugs.
iii. Any mental illness, mental disability or mental
abnormality.
iv. Behavioral characteristics that contribute to the
individual's conduct.
(4) Factors that are supported in a sexual offender
assessment field as criteria reasonably related to the risk
of re-offense.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(b).
Here, the Commonwealth relied upon the report and testimony of Ms. Brust, a
practicing counselor of sex offenders and the SOAB evaluator who performed the court-
ordered sex-offender assessment and prepared the SOAB report. Ms. Brust testified
that in performing her assessment of Defendant, she had considered each of the
statutory factors she was required to consider under Section 9799.24(b). She said that,
based on her consideration of the statutory factors, the facts of this case, arid the facts
pertaining to Defendant's personal and criminal history, she had formed an opinion, to a
reasonable degree of professional certainty, that Defendant meets the criteria for
classification as an SVP. She outlined the facts she considered relevant to each factor
in her written report and discussed the factors and corresponding facts during her
testimony.
7
Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
In summary, based on a review of all available records, including the record in
this case and Defendant's personal and criminal history, and considering the factors
under Section 9799.24, Ms. Brust diagnosed Defendant as having an Other Specified
Paraphilic Disorder and found Defendant's prior and current offenses showed planning
and intent consistent with predatory behavior. Specifically, Defendant "actively searched
for, viewed, saved and masturbated to child pornography" and "[a]t some point, he felt
that this was not enough and he acted out criminally with an actual 14 year old child"
after he "preyed upon the child ... and planned his offense for months[.}" (SOAB report
at 9). Furthermore, Ms. Brust concluded that Defendant "has a sexually deviant pathway
to offending" and his "Other Specified Paraphilia Disorder will cause him to experience
an internal drive towards sexual offending and his disorder predisposes him towards
committing sexual crimes." (SOAB report at 8).
We found that Ms. Brust's uncontradicted testimony was credible and that her
report, diagnoses, and conclusions were fully supported by both the facts and the law.
Viewed in the light of the applicable ·standards, Ms. Brust's testimony and report are
more than sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant was
an SVP.
In sum, we believe that our classification of Defendant as an SVP is fully
supported by the facts and the law and should be affirmed.
C')
Date: October 14, 2014 -
rn
;o J.
' ;:;;,
(''", C)
Cc: Superior Court of Pennsylvania c:
-·q
c; (.')
Jonathan Mark, J. ..
::n 0
.,;
3 c:::
District Attorney (CR) :·< >->. :.~J
Public Defender (RS) C) -I
{/)
.......
crt
8