Opinion
J-S08008-17 No. 246 WDA 2016
06-07-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MATTHEW ALAN MEJIA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated December 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Criminal Division at No(s): 483-2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J. MEMORANDUM BY SOLANO, J.:
Appellant Matthew Alan Mejia appeals from the portion of his judgment of sentence in which the trial court classified him as a sexually violent predator ("SVP") under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant factual and procedural history has been fully recounted by the trial court, and we have no reason to restate it. In short, Appellant, who was thirty years old at the time, repeatedly touched the buttocks of his sixteen-year-old niece, "pushed her on[to] a bed, made sexual remarks to her, and kissed and touched her vaginal area over her pants." Trial Ct. Op., 4/29/15, at 1. For this, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of corruption of a minor, triggering an SVP evaluation. Appellant also pleaded guilty at another docket number to corruption of a minor for having intercourse with the victim's then seventeen-year-old sister when Appellant was twenty-nine. This latter conviction did not trigger an SVP evaluation and is not before us on appeal, but the facts relating to this conviction were considered by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board and by the trial court when making the SVP determination in the instant case.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii).
18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(i).
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion incorrectly recounts that this offense took place over the course of three to four years, rather than two months.
Appellant raises a single issue for our review: "Whether or not the Commonwealth met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant is a sexually violent predator as defined by statute?" Appellant's Brief at 4.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
We do not weigh the evidence presented to the sentencing court and do not make credibility determinations. Instead, we view all the evidence and its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth. We will disturb an SVP designation only if the Commonwealth did not present clear and convincing evidence to enable the court to find each element required by the SVP statutes.Commonwealth v. Feucht , 955 A.2d 377, 382 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted), appeal denied , 963 A.2d 467 (Pa. 2008). "The standard of proof governing the determination of SVP status, i.e., 'clear and convincing evidence,' has been described as an 'intermediate' test, which is more exacting than a preponderance of the evidence test, but less exacting than proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Meals , 912 A.2d 213, 219 (Pa. 2006).
Appellant complains that the Commonwealth's expert witness testified that Appellant met "the diagnostic criteria for unspecified paraphilic disorder in the DSM 5," but never testified that Appellant actually suffered from unspecified paraphilic disorder. Appellant's Brief at 10. According to Appellant, the expert witness testified that it is possible to meet the diagnostic criteria for a condition but not suffer from that condition. Id. Appellant argues that the court therefore erred in concluding that because Appellant meets the diagnostic criteria for paraphilia he has a mental abnormality. Id. Appellant also complains that the trial court did not address Appellant's propensity to reoffend. Id. at 11.
"DSM 5" refers to the fifth edition of the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS. We have described the DSM as a "categorical classification system that divides mental disorders into types based on criteria sets with defining features" and have cited experts' opinions that "the DSM is an authoritative compilation of information about mental disorders and represents the best consensus of the psychiatric profession on how to diagnose mental disorders." See Commonwealth v. Hollingshead , 111 A.3d 186, 190 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 125 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2015).
Under SORNA, a person may be designated as an SVP because of "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. While the court must find that a defendant possesses such a mental abnormality by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant need not have any medical diagnosis of a specific psychological or psychiatric illness. See Commonwealth v. Dengler , 890 A.2d 372, 383 (Pa. 2005) ("The statute does not require proof of a standard of diagnosis that is commonly found and/or accepted in a mental health diagnostic paradigm"). Nor does an SVP assessment require a court to base its determination solely on an expert's opinion of a defendant's risk of reoffending. See Hollingshead , 111 A.3d at 190 (finding that the defense expert's focus on risk of recidivism was misplaced because proof of "the risk of re-offending is but one factor to be considered when making an assessment; it is not an independent element" (citation omitted)). Moreover, as an expert's diagnosis comprises evidence in and of itself, arguments that an expert's findings are "not fully explained, d[o] not square with accepted analyses of the disorder, or [are] simply erroneous," go to the weight, and not the sufficiency, of the evidence. Meals , 912 A.2d at 223-24.
A "mental abnormality" is defined as a "congenital or acquired condition of a person 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." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12. "Predatory" is defined as "[a]n act directed at a stranger or at a person with whom a relationship has been initiated, established, maintained or promoted, in whole or in part, in order to facilitate or support victimization." Id.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Robert L. Boyer comprehensively sets forth the clear and convincing evidence upon which the trial court relied when adjudicating Appellant an SVP. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-4, 8-14 (finding (1) Commonwealth's expert witness testified that (a) Appellant suffered from unspecified paraphilic disorder based on Appellant's relationship to his victims and the physical nature of the underlying offense, and (b) Appellant engaged in predatory behavior based on "the maintenance or promotion of multiple children, including the first victim being subjected to a relationship escalating to sexual intercourse"; (2) the Commonwealth's expert witness examined whether Appellant was at risk regarding re-offense; and (3) the Commonwealth's expert witness was credible). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. Because we do so, we instruct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court's April 29, 2015 opinion to any future pleadings that reference this Court's decision.
We note that the Commonwealth's expert witness testified as follows:
[Appellant's counsel]: And you would agree that it's possible to meet what would be known as a diagnostic criteria for paraphilia, but not actually suffer from the condition correct?
A: Yes.
[Appellant's counsel]: Alright and in this case you determined that [Appellant] meets the criteria in the DSM, correct?
A: Yes.
[Appellant's counsel]: And based on him meeting the criteria, you then diagnosed him as actually suffering from it, is that right?
A: I find that he does meet the criteria, yes.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/7/2017
Image materials not available for display.
N.T., 12/17/15, at 23-24 (emphasis added). This testimony belies Appellant's claim that the Commonwealth's expert did not testify that Appellant suffers from paraphilia.