Opinion
J-S58045-16 No. 303 MDA 2016
10-13-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BRENDON CARUANO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 4, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002632-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BOWES, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Brendon Caruano, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty plea to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3125(a)(7) and 6301(a)(1), respectively.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Between January 2006 and December 2009, Appellant sexually abused his minor cousin ("Victim") on multiple occasions. Specifically, Appellant penetrated Victim's vagina with his fingers, exposed himself to Victim, and put his mouth on Victim's vagina. After Victim reported the abuse, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, endangering welfare of children, indecent exposure, and corruption of minors on May 29, 2015. On July 28, 2015, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors, in exchange for the court's dismissal of the remaining charges against Appellant. After accepting Appellant's guilty plea, the court ordered the Sexual Offender Assessment Board ("SOAB") to assess Appellant and determine if Appellant met the criteria for classification as a sexually violent predator ("SVP"). The court deferred sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") report and Appellant's SVP assessment. SOAB member, Dr. Veronique Valliere, conducted Appellant's SVP assessment.
The court held a SVP hearing on February 4, 2016, where the Commonwealth introduced the expert report prepared by Dr. Valliere. In her report, Dr. Valliere stated Appellant suffers from paraphilic disorder, which is a lifelong condition that overrides Appellant's emotional and volitional control. Dr. Valliere's report also indicated Appellant exhibited predatory behavior when he exploited his access to Victim to facilitate the abuse. Dr. Valliere opined to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that Appellant met the criteria for classification as a SVP.
Appellant presented the testimony of Dr. Timothy Foley, who also conducted a SVP assessment of Appellant. Dr. Foley agreed with Dr. Valliere's paraphilic disorder diagnosis; however, Dr. Foley asserted certain modifications applied to the diagnosis, which significantly decreased Appellant risk of recidivism. Dr. Foley opined Appellant does not meet the criteria for classification as a SVP due to the unlikelihood that he will engage in future predatory behavior. After consideration of the expert reports and testimony, the court imposed SVP status based on its finding that Appellant suffers from paraphilic disorder, which makes him likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.
Immediately following the SVP hearing, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of twenty-two (22) to seventy-two (72) months' incarceration for the aggravated indecent assault conviction followed by a consecutive term of sixty (60) months' probation for the corruption of minors conviction. On February 22, 2016, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On February 24, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on March 15, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CLASSIFYING...APPELLANT AS A [SVP] WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT MEETS THE STATUTORY CRITERIA DESIGNATING HIM TO BE A [SVP] BECAUSE THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE THAT [APPELLANT'S] MENTAL ABNORMALITY MAKES IT LIKELY THAT HE WILL ENGAGE IN FUTURE SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATORY OFFENSES?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Paul M. Yatron, we conclude Appellant's issue on appeal merits no relief. The trial court opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 12, 2016, at 2-6) (finding: Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement fails to state with any specificity what court failed to consider when it determined Appellant met criteria for classification as SVP; thus, Appellant's claim is waived; even if not waived, Appellant's claim warrants no relief; Appellant admitted sexually abusing Victim multiple times between 2006 and 2009; specifically, Appellant admitted he digitally penetrated and put his mouth on Victim's vagina; Dr. Valliere prepared report based on her SVP assessment of Appellant, which analyzed relevant factors pursuant to Section 9799.24; Dr. Valliere's report specifically noted that Appellant exploited his access to Victim and used his public persona as police officer to camouflage his deviant sexual arousal and abuse of Victim; Dr. Valliere opined Appellant suffers from paraphilic disorder, which is lifetime condition that overrides Appellant's emotional and volitional control; Dr. Valliere concluded Appellant meets criteria for classification as SVP; Appellant presented expert testimony of Dr. Foley, who also performed SVP assessment of Appellant; while Dr. Foley agreed with Dr. Valliere that Appellant suffers from paraphilic disorder, Dr. Foley opined Appellant has low likelihood of reoffending; after reviewing expert reports and testimony, court concluded Appellant met criteria for classification as SVP based on his diagnosis of paraphilic disorder and his predatory behavior toward Victim; therefore, Commonwealth proved by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant met criteria for classification as SVP). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/13/2016
Image materials not available for display.