J-S58037-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAN-DAVID ROBERTS
Appellant No. 434 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 19, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001970-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2015
Appellant, Jan-David Roberts, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following his
negotiated guilty plea to indecent assault against a person under sixteen
(16) years of age, and corruption of minors.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Appellant sexually abused his stepdaughter (“Victim”) from approximately
2001 until 2005, when she was seven (7) to eleven (11) years old. Victim
reported the abuse when she was sixteen (16) years old, and the
Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant on June 26, 2012, with
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(8) and 6301(a), respectively.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S58037-15
corruptions of minors, unlawful contact with minor, and indecent assault of a
person less than thirteen (13) years of age. On December 11, 2013,
Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to indecent assault against a
person under sixteen (16) years of age, and corruption of minors. The trial
court deferred sentencing pending a sexually violent predator (“SVP”)
hearing. On May 19, 2014, the trial court held a SVP hearing, determined
Appellant was a SVP, and ordered Appellant to be a lifetime registrant under
the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).2 Following
the SVP hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-four (24)
months of intermediate punishment for the indecent assault offense, and a
consecutive sixty (60) months of probation for the corruption of minors
offense.
On May 29, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this
Court; however, he withdrew the appeal on June 13, 2014. Appellant then
filed a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc on July 23, 2014, which the trial
court denied on September 8, 2014. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on
September 17, 2014; however this Court quashed Appellant’s appeal
because he did not have the trial court’s permission to file his July 23, 2014
post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc.
On December 2, 2014, Appellant timely filed a petition pursuant to the
____________________________________________
2
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.41.
-2-
J-S58037-15
Post-Conviction Relief Act,3 asking the trial court to reinstate his post-
sentence and direct appeal rights. The trial court granted Appellant’s
petition on January 8, 2015, and reinstated Appellant’s post-sentence and
direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On January 15, 2015, Appellant filed a
nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on
February 4, 2015. On March 5, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal to this Court. On March 10, 2015, the trial 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 11, 2015.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S POST-SENTENCE MOTION WHERE HIS
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR DESIGNATION WAS
AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO
SHOCK ONE’S SENSE OF JUSTICE WHERE THE
COMMONWEALTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT
APPELLANT POSSESSES A MENTAL ABNORMALITY, AND
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER STATUTORILY
PRESCRIBED FACTORS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE, APPELLANT’S PRIOR
OFFENSE HISTORY, AND APPELLANT’S RISK OF
REOFFENDING?
(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 Scott A.
Evans, we conclude Appellant’s issue on appeal merits no relief. The trial
____________________________________________
3
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-3-
J-S58037-15
court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 28, 2015, at 2-8)
(finding: Dr. Stein, expert in area of sexual offender assessment, completed
evaluation of Appellant and testified on behalf of Commonwealth at SVP
hearing; Dr. Stein testified Victim was seven (7) years old when abuse
began and Appellant continued sexual abuse of Victim for at least four (4)
years; Dr. Stein stated Victim’s age and length of abuse were sufficient
evidence to establish Appellant suffers from mental abnormality of
pedophilia, an incurable condition that involves sustained sexual interest in
child; Dr. Stein also testified that Appellant exhibited predatory behavior by
repeatedly touching Victim while she was sleeping or half asleep; Dr. Stein
indicated he found Appellant’s relationship with Victim as her stepfather,
Appellant’s prior conviction involving sexual incident in 2008, Appellant’s
history of violating probation and parole, and Appellant’s history of selling
and using marijuana relevant to SVP determination; Dr. Stein acknowledged
Appellant’s participation in sex offender programming, but noted there was
no information available regarding Appellant’s progress; Dr. Stein concluded
there was sufficient evidence to classify Appellant as SVP based on facts of
case and consideration of statutory factors; therefore, court’s determination
that Appellant is SVP was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we
affirm of the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
-4-
J-S58037-15
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/15/2015
-5-
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM
Com. v. Roberts, J.
Combined Opinion