Opinion
J-S17027-17 No. 1393 EDA 2016
05-17-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. VINCENT YANT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 15, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0002716-2015 BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant, Vincent Yant, appeals from the April 15, 2016 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ("trial court") sentencing Appellant to 3½-7 years' incarceration followed by 10 years' probation, and classifying Appellant as sexually violent predator ("SVP") for false imprisonment, stalking, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and harassment. Appellant is challenging the trial court's classification of Appellant as an SVP. Upon review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2903, 2790.1, 3126, 3127, and 2709 respectively.
Briefly, Appellant was arrested on November 16, 2014, in connection with two incidents, one on August 31, 2014, and another on October 26, 2014. During the first incident, Appellant "followed the seventeen year old female victim, a stranger to him, after she got off public transportation, grabbed her[,] and attempted to drag her into an empty lot and assault her; the victim's screams caught the attention of a passerby." Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/16, at 2. In the second incident, Appellant "followed the victim, also a stranger to him, after she exited public transportation, exposed himself and began masturbating, then fled." Id.
Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea on October 13, 2015, during which he was made aware that he would be subject to an SVP assessment. The trial court held an SVP hearing on April 15, 2016, after which the trial court found Appellant to be an SVP. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions but filed a timely notice of appeal on April 27, 2016. Appellant's trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which the trial court granted on May 13, 2016, and appointed appellate counsel. On June 1, 2016, the trial court directed Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). After granting Appellant an extension, Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on July 18, 2016. The trial court entered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on August 15, 2016.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal: "Was the evidence insufficient to support the finding that Appellant was an SVP?" Appellant's Brief at 3. Our standard of review for a sufficiency challenge to an SVP designation is well established.
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[n SVP]. 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. Hollingshead , 111 A.3d 186, 189 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Baker , 24 A.3d 1006, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2011), aff'd , 78 A.3d 1044) (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) (alteration in original)).
After a defendant has been convicted of an enumerated offense, the trial court orders the Sexual Offender Assessment Board ("SOAB") to conduct an assessment to determine whether a defendant should be designated an SVP. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Stephens , 84 A.3d 1034, 1038-39 (Pa. Super. 2013)). At the SVP hearing the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant has been convicted of an enumerated offense, and has "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. . .. Moreover, there must be a showing that the defendant's conduct was predatory." Id. (quoting Stephens 84 A.3d at 1038-39). When conducting the assessment, the SOAB is required to address a number of factors. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(b). Additionally, the Commonwealth's expert is required to give an opinion regarding the defendant's propensity to reoffend. Hollingshead , 111 A.3d at 189.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.14.
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.
(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 sexual offender assessment field as criteria reasonably related to the risk of re-offense.
In the matter sub judice, the Commonwealth presented the report of Dr. Barry Zakireh of the SOAB. See N.T. Sentencing, 4/15/16, at Ex. C-1. After review of the record, including the report of Dr. Zakireh, the briefs, and the law, the trial court's August 15, 2016 opinion adequately addresses Appellant's sufficiency claim. Appellant was convicted of an enumerated offense, the report of Dr. Zakireh addresses all of the factors listed in section 9799.24(b) of the act, Dr. Zakireh determined that Appellant has a personality disorder that makes Appellant likely to engage in predatory conduct, and Appellant's conduct was predatory in nature. See id.
The parties stipulated as to the admissibility of the report and that if called to testify Dr. Zakireh would testify consistent to the report. N.T. Sentencing, 4/15/16, at 8. The trial court admitted the report into evidence as Ex. C-1. Id. --------
In conclusion, we find that Appellant's claim is meritless. Therefore we affirm the judgment of sentence. We direct that a copy of the trial court's August 15, 2016 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/17/2017
Image materials not available for display.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24.