Com. v. Santiago, D. ( 2021 )

J-S25035-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DANIEL SANTIAGO :
:
Appellant : No. 2003 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 16, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-39-CR-0005003-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
Daniel Santiago (Santiago) appeals from the June 16, 2020 judgment
of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial
court) following his negotiated guilty plea to indecent assault of a person
under the age of 13 and statutory sexual assault.1 Santiago challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his designation as a Sexually Violent
Predator (SVP) under Revised Subchapter H of the Sexual Offenders
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
In April of 2018, [Mother] made reports to the Salisbury Police
Department regarding sexual assaults against her daughters, A.S.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3126(a)(7) & 3122.1(b).
J-S25035-21
(age 14) and D.P. (age 10). She indicated that the assaults
occurred the previous summer (2017) and that the perpetrator
was her ex-boyfriend, [Santiago].
A.S. underwent a forensic interview at the Child Advocacy Center
and during the interview indicated that [Santiago] began touching
her two weeks before she finished the eighth grade, when she was
14 years old. The assaults continued through the summer.
Specifically, A.S. reported that [Santiago] would enter her
bedroom in the morning hours and would ask to give her a
massage. While massaging A.S., [Santiago] would touch her
breasts. She indicated that at other times he would come in and
touch her vagina. She indicated that on at least one occasion he
penetrated her vagina with his fingers.
A.S. indicated that at some point in time, [Santiago] had her
perform oral sex on him and he masturbated in front of her. On
other occasions, A.S. indicated that [Santiago] would lick her
vagina. She further indicated that [Santiago] would tell her not
to tell anyone. At the time, A.S. was 14 years old and [Santiago]
was 29 years old.
D.P. was separately interviewed and indicated that one night
during the summer of 2017, she awoke from sleeping to find
[Santiago] in her bedroom. She indicated that she went back to
sleep but [Santiago] returned to the bedroom. She stated that
[Santiago] pulled her pants and underwear down and “touched
her butt.”
Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/2020, at 3-4. Santiago pled guilty to the above-
mentioned offenses and the trial court ordered that he be assessed by the
Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB). He was sentenced to an
aggregate of one year less one day to two years less two days of incarceration
followed by ten years’ probation.
-2-
J-S25035-21
On September 18, 2020, Santiago proceeded to a hearing to determine
whether he was an SVP.2 The Commonwealth and the defense stipulated to
the admission of the written assessment by Dr. Veronique Valliere, Psy.D.,
(Dr. Valliere) of the SOAB in which she opined that Santiago was an SVP. No
other evidence was submitted at the hearing. Santiago argued that Dr.
Valliere’s findings were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Following argument, the trial court determined that Santiago was an SVP. He
timely appealed and he and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Santiago argues that the trial court erred in designating him
as an SVP because the Commonwealth did not present clear and convincing
evidence that he suffered from a mental illness, disability or abnormality.3 He
contends that Dr. Valliere’s opinion was formed without speaking with him or
performing any diagnostic testing or evaluation.4 He further argues that Dr.
Valliere’s diagnosis of “Other Specified Personality Disorder with Antisocial and
____________________________________________
2 Santiago waived his right to have the SVP hearing prior to sentencing. See
Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 558, 561 (Pa. Super. 2016).
3 The sufficiency of the evidence to support an SVP designation is a question
of law and our standard of review is de novo. Commonwealth v. Stephens,
74 A.3d 1034, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2013). Our scope of review is plenary and
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the
prevailing party below. Id.4 Santiago declined to participate in the assessment on advice of his attorney.
See Notes of Testimony, 9/18/20, at 18-20.
-3-
J-S25035-21
Narcissistic Traits” was too vague and unsupported to justify his SVP
designation.
Under Revised Subchapter H of SORNA, the SOAB must assess all
individuals convicted of sexually violent offenses to determine whether they
should be classified as an SVP and subject to increased registration,
notification and counseling requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24. An SVP
is an individual who has committed one of the enumerated offenses and has
a “mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely
to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. A
mental abnormality is “[a] congenital or acquired condition . . . that affects
the emotional or volitional capacity of the person in a manner that predisposes
that person to the commission of criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes
the person a menace to the health and safety of other persons.” Id.
When determining whether a particular offender is an SVP, the SOAB
must examine numerous factors:
(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.
(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:
-4-
J-S25035-21
(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 reoffense.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(b)(1)-(4). The SOAB then submits a written report of
its determination to the district attorney, who may file a praecipe for a hearing
on the matter. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(d), (e)(1). At the hearing, the trial court
must determine whether the Commonwealth has proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the offender is an SVP. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(e)(3).
Clear and convincing evidence 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.” Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74
A.3d 1034, 1039 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted, alteration in original).
While the SOAB must consider all factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(b)
during its assessment, no single factor is required or dispositive.
Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 381 (Pa. Super. 2008). Instead,
the trial court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant has a “mental abnormality” that makes him likely to engage in
-5-
J-S25035-21
predatory sexually violent offenses. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. “[T]he statute
does not require proof of a standard or diagnosis that is commonly found
and/or accepted in a mental health diagnostic paradigm.” Commonwealth
v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186, 190 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). A
challenge to the validity of an expert’s diagnosis of a mental abnormality is a
challenge to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence. Id. at 193. Thus,
if a trial court finds the expert opinion to be credible and supported by facts
of record, we may not disturb that credibility determination. Id. at 194.
As pointed out by the trial court, Santiago’s challenge to the validity of
Dr. Valliere’s diagnosis of Other Specified Personality Disorder with Antisocial
and Narcissistic Traits implicates the weight and not the sufficiency of the
evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/2020, at 9-10; see also
Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 944-45 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en
banc) (holding that a challenge to an expert opinion rendered with a
reasonable degree of professional certainty implicates the weight of the
evidence, which is properly addressed by the trial court). Santiago offered
argument on this point at the hearing and preserved a challenge to the weight
of the evidence in his concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See
Notes of Testimony, 9/18/20, at 9-13; Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal, 11/9/20. However, he abandoned his weight claim
on appeal and argues only that the determination was not supported by
-6-
J-S25035-21
sufficient evidence. As a result, any challenge to the weight of the evidence
is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2119(a).
Moreover, our review of the record of the SVP hearing and Dr. Valliere’s
report confirms that the trial court’s determination was supported by sufficient
evidence. Dr. Valliere’s report set forth detailed factual findings concerning
the elements of a mental abnormality and the definition of predatory behavior,
as well as each of the enumerated factors in Section 9799.24(b). In making
her factual findings and reaching her professional opinions, she considered
reports, court documents and other materials from all of Santiago’s past and
current criminal offenses; documents from Lehigh County Children, Youth and
Families’ involvement with Santiago; his presentence investigation report; his
army discharge summary; PennDOT records; civil dockets; the letter from his
attorney declining participation in the assessment; and documents related to
past Protection From Abuse (PFA) orders filed against him. Regarding his non-
participation in the process, Dr. Valliere explained: “Because the diagnosis of
a personality disorder relies on the exhibition of pervasive and long-standing
behavioral and interpersonal patterns, it is possible to make this diagnosis
when a comprehensive view of records over a substantial period of the
offender’s life span is performed.” Notes of Testimony, 9/18/20,
Commonwealth Exhibit 1, at 3.
Based on the information set forth in Dr. Valliere’s report, the trial court
reasoned as follows:
-7-
J-S25035-21
We determined that the Commonwealth presented clear and
convincing evidence that [Santiago] suffered from a mental
abnormality, namely Other Specified Personality Disorder with
Antisocial and Narcissistic Traits and that his behavior related to
these charges was clearly predatory in nature. Dr. Valliere
determined that [Santiago] was physically abusive to his
paramour and the victims, had been arrested for criminal activity
numerous times, had an unsteady job history, and suffers from
substance abuse which related to his offense behavior. He
admitted to being unfaithful in romantic relationships, violated
probation supervision, and had been other than honorably
discharged from the United States Army. His egotistical,
immature, and irresponsible behaviors persisted throughout his
life. [Santiago] has a history of abusing family members, both
physically and after the instant facts, sexually. He has had
multiple victims and is described as interpersonally exploitive.
Dr. Valliere opined that individuals with personality disorders
“have a difficult time in treatment. Change is difficult for a
number of reasons. First, the traits are characterological and
difficult to change. Second, typically persons with personality
disorders have little distress about their own behaviors and impact
of them, decreasing the internal motivation to change.”
Personality disorders are “disorders of a foundational, chronic, and
persistent nature.” She also opined that the antisocial traits
exhibited by [Santiago] “contribute to the likelihood of violent
recidivism.” Although “these traits do not necessarily contribute
to the risk of recidivism of sexual violence,” traits such as
callousness, a lack of empathy, egocentricity, impulsivity, and
aggression could make it more likely for an individual to be able
to hurt another for their own gratification.
Dr. Valliere further opined that because [Santiago] abused the
victims, whom he was raising as his own children, thereby
abdicating his role as a parent and instead promoted a secretive,
exploitive, and abusive relationship with A.S. and abused D.P., his
behavior met the statutory definition of “predatory behavior.”
Having determined that [Santiago] suffered from a mental
disorder and engaged in predatory behavior, Dr. Valliere
determined that [Santiago] met the criteria to be classified as [an
SVP] under the Act. All of Dr. Valliere’s opinions were rendered
to a reasonable degree of professional certainty.
-8-
J-S25035-21
***
After consideration of Dr. Valliere’s determination of a mental
abnormality and predatory behavior, a review of the facts
contributing to Dr. Valliere’s assessment, and the facts of the
instant matter, this Court found by clear and convincing evidence
that [Santiago] was a sexually violent predator.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/2020, at 12-13 (citations omitted). We agree.
Following a review of all available documents concerning Santiago’s history,
Dr. Valliere opined with a reasonable degree of professional certainty that he
met the diagnostic criteria for Other Specified Personality Disorder with
Antisocial Traits. Notes of Testimony, 9/18/20, Commonwealth Exhibit 1, at
8. Her analysis was supported by reference to specific facts in Santiago’s
history and the documents available to her when performing the assessment.
She explained that the personality disorder was “of a foundational, chronic,
and persistent nature” that was associated with a likelihood of reoffending in
the future. Id. The trial court credited Dr. Valliere’s opinion. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, it was sufficient
for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that Santiago is an
SVP. Accordingly, his issue has no merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S25035-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2021
- 10 -