In Re: J.S., Appeal of: J.S.

J. S17031/19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: J.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: J.S. : No. 2376 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered July 11, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Civil Division at No. CV-2013-MH-0293
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2019
J.S. appeals from the July 11, 2018 order entered by the Court of
Common Pleas of Lehigh County involuntarily committing appellant for one
year to the Sexual Responsibility and Treatment Program (“SRTP”) at Torrance
State Hospital. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court provided the following synopsis of the relevant procedural
and factual history:
Appellant is a 25-year-old male who was adjudicated
delinquent on charges of indecent assault[1] in 2009
and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse[2] in 2010.
On July 29, 2013, [a]ppellant was initially committed
to the Sexual Responsibility & Treatment Program
(SRTP) at Torrance State Hospital after licensed
psychologist, Veronique N. Valliere, [Psy.D.], expert
examiner for the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
(SOAB), offered her professional opinion that
[a]ppellant met the criteria for civil commitment of
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a).
J. S17031/19
sexually violent delinquent children. On September 9,
2013, [a]ppellant filed his first appeal contesting his
Act 21 commitment. On October 15, 2014, the
Superior Court affirmed [a]ppellant’s civil
commitment pursuant to Act 21. Appellant has
undergone several evaluations and annual review
hearings since the time of his initial commitment and
he has been recommitted each year.
On December 4, 2017, [a]ppellant pled guilty to
aggravated assault[3] (two counts) and simple
assault[4] (two counts) for attacking his treatment
staff at SRTP on multiple occasions. Appellant
received an aggregate sentence of three (3) to
eight (8) years[’] confinement and is currently
incarcerated at SCI-Albion.
On July 11, 2018, an annual review of [a]ppellant’s
involuntary commitment was held in accordance with
Act 21.[Footnote 7] Before the hearing, the [trial
court] reviewed a ten-month comprehensive report
provided by Dr. Stacie J. Barnes, [Psy.D.], the Clinical
Director of the SRTP program, at Torrance State
Hospital. The [trial court] also reviewed an Annual
Act 21 Commitment Assessment Report from
Dr. Veronique N. Valliere, Psy.D. of the [SOAB].
[Footnote 7] 42 Pa.C.S.[A. §] 6404(b)(2).
The [trial court] determined by clear and convincing
evidence that [a]ppellant continues to have serious
difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior due to a
mental abnormality or personality disorder that
makes him likely to engage in an act of sexual
violence. The [trial court] ordered that, upon
completion of his term of imprisonment and
subsequent parole, he be recommitted in accordance
with Act 21. In the event that he remains incarcerated
beyond the one-year review period, a review period
shall be held in accordance with the law.
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a).
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a).
-2-
J. S17031/19
Trial court opinion, 1/18/19 at 3-4 (citations to exhibits omitted).
Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court on August 8, 2018. On
August 13, 2018, the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
timely complied on August 28, 2018. On January 18, 2019, the trial court
filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the [trial] court’s SVDC determination, which
resulted in [a]ppellant’s continued commitment for
involuntary inpatient treatment, was based on
insufficient evidence where the Commonwealth failed
to establish clear and convincing evidence [a]ppellant
was likely to engage in predatory sexually violent
offenses?
Appellant’s brief at 7.
Having determined, after careful review, that the Honorable Kelly L.
Banach, in her Rule 1925(a) opinion, ably and comprehensively disposes of
appellant’s issues on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and
without legal error, we will affirm on the basis of that opinion (Finding:
“[a]ppellant continues to have serious difficulty controlling sexually violent
behavior while committed for inpatient treatment due to a mental abnormality
or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in an act of
sexual violence”).
Order affirmed.
-3-
J. S17031/19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/19
-4-
Circulated 07/31/2019 11:46 AM
IN HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
I
I
I No. 2013-MH-293
Appellant I 2376 EDA 2018
OPINION
LY L. BANACH, J.:
On May 6, 2010, the Appellant was adjudicated delinquent? after his
ad ission to felony involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. When Appellant
tu ed 20 years old, he was involuntarily committed pursuant to Act 21.3
Foll wing a series of annual review hearings, the Appellant has remained civilly
co itted at Torrance State Hospital for Sexually Violent Delinquent Children.
On July 11, 2018, an annual review hearing was held and the Court
det nnined that the Appellant met all criteria necessary for recommitment
r Act 21" and committed the Appellant, upon completion of his term of
isonments and subsequent parole, to Torrance State Hospital. This Court
er ordered that in the event he remain incarcerated beyond the one-year
revi w period, a review shall be held in accordance with the law and any
sub equent recommitment to Torrance State Hospital would arise as a result of
2 Th Appellant was adjudicated delinquent when he was 17 years old and is currently
25 y ars old.
3 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6403(d).
4 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6404(b).
s Ap llant testified that he is currently incarcerated at SCI Albion and is not eligible for
par e until on or about December 29, 2019.
2
On August 8, 2018, the Appellant, through his counsel, filed an Appeal
of e recommitment order.v On August 13, 2018, the Appellant was ordered to
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. On August 28, 2018, the
App llant filed the Statement. This Opinion follows.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Appellant is a 25-year-old male who was adjudicated delinquent on
ges of indecent assault in 2009 and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
in 010. On July 29, 2013, Appellant was initially committed to the Sexual
onsibility & Treatment Program (SRTP) at Torrance State Hospital after
sed psychologist, Veronique N. Valliere, PsyD, expert examiner for the
al Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB), offered her professional opinion
Appellant met the criteria for civil commitment of sexually violent
de · quent children. On September 9, 2013, the Appellant filed his first appeal
con esting his Act 21 commitment. On October 15, 2014, the Superior Court
ed Appellant's civil commitment pursuant to Act 21. Appellant has
un ergone several evaluations and annual review hearings since the time of his
init al commitment and he has been recommitted each year.
On December 4, 2017, Appellant pied guilty to aggravated assault (two
ts) and simple assault (two counts) for attacking his treatment staff at
Pon multiple occasions. See CP-65-CR-4173,4177-2016. Appellant received
aggregate sentence of three (3) to eight (8) years confinement and is
cu ently incarcerated at SCI-Albion.
6 T July 11, 2018, Order is attached as Exhibit A for the Superior Court's
con enience.
3
On July 11, 2018, an annual review of Appellant's involuntary
co itment was held in accordance with Act 21.1 Before the hearing, the Court
revi wed a ten-month comprehensive report provided by Dr. Stacie J. Barnes,
Psy , the Clinical Director of the SRTP program, at Torrance State Hospital. See
Exh bit B. The Court also reviewed an Annual Act 21 Commitment Assessment
Rep rt from Dr. Veronique N. Valliere, Psy.D. of the Sexual Offender
Ass ssment Board. See Exhibit C.
The Court determined by clear and convincing evidence that the
serious difficulty controlling sexually violent
vior due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him
to engage in an act of sexual violence. The Court ordered that, upon
co pletion of his term of imprisonment and subsequent parole, he be
mmitted in accordance with Act 21. In the event that he remains
cerated beyond the one-year review period, a review period shall be held in
ace rdance with the law.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellant, in his Statement of Errors, argues the Commonwealth's
evi ence at the annual review hearing, held on July 11, 2018, was insufficient
as matter of law. Specifically, Appellant contends the Commonwealth's
evi ence failed to establish that Appellant demonstrates serious difficulty
his sexually violent behavior. We begin by discussing Act 21
gen rally.
Act 21 amended the Juvenile Act to provide for the
assessment and civil commitment of certain sexually
violentjuveniles. The Act requires that the State
Sexual Offenders Assessment Board ("the Board")
1 42 PaC.S. 6404(b)(2).
4
evaluate specified juveniles before they leave the
jurisdiction of the juvenile system. 42 Pa.C.S. §§
6302, 6358(a). The juveniles to be evaluated are
those, (1) who have been found delinquent for an act
of sexual violence; (2) who have been committed to
an institution or facility pursuant to the Juvenile
Act; and, (3) who remained in that facility on their
20th birthdays. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6358(a).
***
Upon receipt of the necessary information, the Board
is charged with determining whether the juvenile is
in need of commitment for involuntary treatment due
to a mental abnormality or a personality disorder
which results in the juvenile having serious difficulty
in controlling sexually violent behavior. 42 Pa.C.S. §
6358(c).
***
If the Board has decided the juvenile is in need of
involuntary treatment, the Court must hold a
dispositional review hearing to determine whether
there is a prima facie case that the juvenile is in need
of involuntary treatment. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6358(e), (f).
***
The criteria for commitment are that the juvenile has
been adjudicated delinquent for an act of sexual
violence, he was committed to an institution or
facility for delinquent children, he was in such
institution on his 20th birthday and, he "is in need of
involuntary treatment due to a mental abnormality
or personality disorder that results in serious
difficulty in controlling sexually violent behavior that
makes the person likely to engage in an act of sexual
violence." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(a).
***
If the Court determines that the juvenile meets the
criteria for commitment by clear and convincing
evidence, it issues an order committing the juvenile
for involuntary treatment at an inpatient facility
designated for the purpose by the Department of
Public Welfare. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6402, 6403(d).
See In re K.A.P., 916 A.2d 1152, 1156 n.3 (Pa.Super.2007).
5
It is clear from the language of Act 21 and the prior holdings of the
sylvania Appellate Courts that it is the Commonwealth that bears the
en of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a
me tal abnormality or personality disorder which results in serious difficulty in
con olling sexually violent behavior that makes the person likely to engage in
an ct of sexual violence. If the Commonwealth meets this burden, the court is
to e ter an order committing the person to inpatient treatment for a period of
one year." See In Re: In re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d 24, 38 (Pa.Super. 2013)(citing In
the nterest of A.C., 991 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa.Super.2010) (citations, quotation
s, and emphasis omitted).
"Clear and convincing evidence" is defined as testimony that is so clear,
dire t, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear
iction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re
R.I.. , 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011). Thus, the clear and convincing evidence
test "has been described as an intermediate test, which is more exacting than a
onderance of the evidence test, but less exacting than proof beyond a
nable doubt." Com. v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006). Appellate
s will review the evidence before the trial court by examining said evidence
in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See In Re. S.T.S., supra, at 41(det rmining that the "the trial court was in the best position to observe and
rule on the credibility of the expert witnesses).
After carefully reviewing the expert reports issued by Dr. Barnes and Dr.
Val ere, and considering arguments of counsel, the Court determined that the
App Hant met the criteria outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6404(b)(2), which called for
con inued involuntary commitment. Appellant continues to suffer from an
6
anti ocial personality disorder, other specified paraphilic disorder (with traits of
e bitionism and arousal to force and non-consent), other specified mood
der, and a conduct disorder.s The issue is whether Appellant continues to
serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior, due to said
ders, that makes him likely to engage in an act of sexual violence.
At the time of Appellant's most recent evaluations, he was incarcerated
is assaults on his treatment staff. On June 16, 2016, Appellant became out
ntrol and punched a treating physician several times in the face, then
ched an intervening staff member in the head, which caused a severe
con ussion and brain bleed in the staff member.? On July 20, 2016, Appellant
had to be restrained after sticking his fingers in a staff member's eye, then took
the staff member to the ground, causing a concussion and "possible spinal
Dr. Barnes noted that although Appellant reported he was "doing very
in prison he continues to struggle. Based on the pervasiveness of his
es his diagnoses likely did not change during the review period simply
bee use he was incarcerated. Moreover, it is concerning that the Appellant has
received any sex offender treatment while incarcerated. Appellant has a
comply with social norms, deceitfulness, impulsivity,
bility and aggressiveness, reckless disregard for his and others safety, and
limi ed remorse for his actions.11 Appellant claims to have completely changed
sin e his treatment at SRTP but is unable to "understand it." Dr. Barnes
con luded that Appellant needs to become involved in treatment in order to
s Ex "bit B p. 5 Headnote "Diagnoses"
CJ Se Exhibit C p. 2 15
10 J. .
"bit B p. 5. 13,
7
ad ess his mental abnormality and personality disorders.P The SRTP has also
ified that once Appellant is situated through the Department of
ections they will attempt to work with the SOAB to make arrangements for
him to participate in sex offense specific treatment.P
Dr. Valliere concurs and reports that although Appellant is not
dis aying the symptoms of his personability disorder or paraphilic disorder at
this time, his control is externally managed by his incarceration and his fear of
oth r inmates. •4 There is nothing to suggest that his current manageability is a
lt of skills, improved motivation, or true change, given his environment.
Ap llant requires a longer period of behavioral and sexual stability, given his
history of aggression and deviance, to conclude that he no longer meets
riteria for commitrnent.w
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court had little difficulty coming to
a c ear conviction, without hesitation, that the Appellant continues to have
difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior while committed for
tient treatment due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder that
m es the person likely to engage in an act of sexual violence.
12 E "bit 8 p. 6 14.
ia E 'bit B p. 5 2.
11 E "bit C p. 3 6.
rs E 'bit C p. 3 6.
8
CONCLUSION
After review of the evidence presented at the Act 21 Hearing, arguments
of ounsel, and review of the applicable statute, the Court did not err in
det rmining that the Appellant met the qualifications for recommitment under
Act 1 and urges the Court to dismiss the instant Appeal.
By the Court:
Kelly L. Banach J.
9