Title: Commonwealth v. Bell

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and 
Carrico, S.J. 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
 v.  Record No. 102314           SENIOR JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO 
 
 
 
September 16, 2011 
DEREK BELL 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO 
Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge 
 
 
This appeal in a sexually violent predator proceeding 
involves the first annual review in the case of Derek Bell.  In 
April of 2009, he was declared by a jury in the Circuit Court of 
the City of Waynesboro to be a sexually violent predator and was 
civilly committed by the circuit court to the custody of the 
Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance 
Abuse Services for appropriate treatment.  At the conclusion of 
the review hearing on May 5, 2010, the circuit court found that 
Bell "remains a 'sexually violent predator' as defined under 
Virginia Code § 37.2-900" but that he "satisfies the criteria for 
conditional release set forth under Virginia Code § 37.2-912.” 
 
On May 24, 2010, the court ordered that Bell be granted a 
conditional release but that he be held in custody pending the 
preparation of a conditional release plan.  A plan was submitted, 
and the circuit court approved it in a hearing held on September 
2 
 
9, 2010, ordering that Bell be released from the custody of the 
Department.1 
 
Bell does not question the circuit court's finding that he 
remains a sexually violent predator.  However, the Commonwealth 
does question the circuit court's decision that Bell satisfied 
the criteria for conditional release, and this Court granted the 
Commonwealth this appeal to consider that question.  
 
In reviewing the Commonwealth's challenge to the circuit 
court's judgment, we will view the evidence and all reasonable 
inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to 
Bell, the prevailing party below.  Commonwealth v. Squire, 278 
Va. 746, 749, 685 S.E.2d 631, 632 (2009).  When a case is decided 
by a court and a party objects to the decision on the ground that 
it is contrary to the evidence, as the Commonwealth objects here, 
“the judgment of the trial court shall not be set aside unless it 
appears from the evidence that such judgment is plainly wrong or 
without evidence to support it.”  Code § 8.01-680; see also 
Commonwealth v. Allen,  269 Va. 262, 276, 609 S.E.2d 4, 13 
(2005). 
BACKGROUND 
 
In Code § 37.2-900, a sexually violent predator is defined 
as “any person who (i) has been convicted of a sexually violent 
                     
 
1 On July 1, 2009, the title of this organization became the 
"Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services" 
(DBHDS).  2009 Acts chs. 813, 840. 
3 
 
offense . . . and (ii) because of a mental abnormality or 
personality disorder, finds it difficult to control his predatory 
behavior, which makes him likely to engage in sexually violent 
acts.” 
 
Prior to an annual review in a sexually violent predator 
case, Code § 37.2-910(B) requires the filing with the court of "a 
report reevaluating the respondent's condition and recommending 
treatment."  The "report shall be prepared by a licensed 
psychiatrist or a licensed clinical psychologist skilled in the 
diagnosis, treatment and risk assessment of sex offenders."  Id. 
 
In Bell's review hearing, the parties stipulated the 
admission into evidence of an annual review report prepared by 
Dr. Michele D. Ebright, Psy.D., and a second opinion in an annual 
report prepared by Dr. Dennis R. Carpenter, Psy.D.  Dr. Ebright 
is the Director of Psychology at the Virginia Center for 
Behavioral Rehabilitation (VCBR), and she testified for the 
Commonwealth at both the review hearing in May 2010 and the 
conditional release plan hearing in September 2010.  On the 
motion of Bell's attorney, Dr. Carpenter was appointed as a 
mental health expert by the circuit court to provide a second 
opinion "in order to assist the court in determining if Mr. Bell 
remains a sexually violent predator as defined under Section 
37.2-900 of the Code of Virginia and continues to require secure 
4 
 
inpatient treatment.”  Dr. Carpenter did not testify at either 
the review hearing or the conditional release plan hearing. 
 
In her report, Dr. Ebright stated that Bell suffered from 
“Hebephilia,” although not conclusively because it was not 
possible to “verify that the necessary duration requirement of 6 
months is met in Mr. Bell’s case.”  Dr. Ebright also diagnosed 
Bell as suffering from “Antisocial Personality Disorder.”  Dr. 
Ebright concluded that Bell "needs continued intensive inpatient 
treatment such as is available at VCBR and that conditional 
release is not recommended." 
 
In his report, Dr. Carpenter also diagnosed Bell as 
suffering from Hebephilia, although he did not believe "there is 
sufficient information for this diagnosis at this time."2  Dr. 
Carpenter further diagnosed Bell as suffering from Cannabis 
Abuse, Alcohol Abuse, and Antisocial Personality Disorder.  While 
Dr. Carpenter stated that the results of a test given Bell placed 
him “in the ‘high risk’ category range for sexual recidivating,” 
                     
 
2 Bell attacks the finding made by Doctors Ebright and 
Carpenter that he "might be diagnosed with 'hebephilia' or the 
sexual attraction to teenagers," which apparently would be 
classified as a "mental abnormality" under Code § 37.2-900.  But 
that Code section defines a sexually violent predator as a person 
who suffers from "a mental abnormality or personality disorder," 
so proof of only one, not both, of the conditions is sufficient 
to support a finding that a person is a sexually violent 
predator.  (Emphasis added.)  Both doctors positively diagnosed 
Bell as suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder."  Bell 
does not question that finding, so his attack on the inconclusive 
hebephilia diagnosis gains him nothing. 
5 
 
the doctor also stated that he believed Bell’s “risk to sexually 
reoffend has been reduced as a result of the 11 months of 
intensive residential sex offender treatment services he has 
received at the VCBR.”3  However, Dr. Carpenter concluded with 
this statement: “While I opine that Mr. Bell is making progress 
in treatment, I do not consider him to be a viable candidate for 
conditional release at this time.  I believe that an additional 
year of treatment would give him the opportunity to enter the 
second phase of treatment . . . and to further solidify his 
treatment gains.” 
ANALYSIS 
 
At an annual review hearing, the Commonwealth has the burden 
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent 
remains a sexually violent predator.  Code § 37.2-910(C).  If the 
court finds that the respondent remains a sexually violent 
predator, it must determine whether the respondent should remain 
in secure inpatient treatment or be conditionally released.  Code 
§ 37.2-910(D); Lotz v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 345, 349, 672 S.E.2d 
833, 836 (2009).  Bell conceded at trial that it was his burden 
"to establish the criteria" for conditional release, and he makes 
                     
 
3 At trial, Dr. Ebright was asked on cross-examination 
whether she agreed with Dr. Carpenter’s opinion that Bell’s risk 
to sexually re-offend had been reduced as a result of the eleven 
months of intensive residential sexual offender treatment 
services he had received at VCBR  Dr. Ebright replied, “I do 
not.” 
6 
 
a similar concession on brief, i.e., by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  We agree with Bell's allocation of the burden of 
proof, and recognize it as the appropriate allocation on 
conditional release in sexually violent predator cases. 
 
Under Code § 37.2-910(D), “[t]o determine if the respondent 
shall be conditionally released, the court shall determine if the 
respondent meets the criteria for conditional release set forth 
in § 37.2-912.”  Code § 37.2-912(A) provides as follows: 
At any time the court considers the respondent’s need for 
secure inpatient treatment pursuant to this chapter, it 
shall place the respondent on conditional release if it 
finds that (i) he does not need secure inpatient treatment 
but needs outpatient treatment or monitoring to prevent his 
condition from deteriorating to a degree that he would need 
secure inpatient treatment; (ii) appropriate outpatient 
supervision and treatment are reasonably available; (iii)  
there is significant reason to believe that the respondent, 
if conditionally released, would comply with the conditions 
specified; and (iv) conditional release will not present an 
undue risk to public safety. 
 
 
As noted previously, Bell does not question the circuit 
court’s finding that he remains a sexually violent predator.  
Hence, the only question left for decision is whether Bell 
satisfied the criteria set forth in Code § 37.2-912 for 
conditional release.  Bell argues that he did satisfy the 
requirements.  He says the trial court found “an abundance of 
evidence which established that Mr. Bell satisfied all criteria 
for conditional release listed under § 37.2-912.” 
7 
 
 
We disagree with Bell.  The difficulty with his argument is 
that, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most 
favorable to him, he cannot clear the first hurdle in his pathway 
to conditional release, i.e., the first criterion set forth in 
Code § 37.2-912(A).  If that is the case, we need not consider 
the three remaining criteria because they would become moot.  
"[C]onditional release is permitted only after a judicial 
determination that [the respondent] satisfies all four criteria 
stated in Code § 37.2-912(A)."  Lotz, 277 Va. at 350, 672 S.E.2d 
at 836 (emphasis added). 
 
The first criterion required Bell to show that he “does not 
need secure inpatient treatment but needs outpatient treatment or 
monitoring to prevent his condition from deteriorating to a 
degree that he would need secure inpatient treatment.”  Code 
§ 37.2-912(A).  Two experts in the sexual offender field, Dr. 
Ebright and Bell's own expert, Dr. Carpenter, clearly opined 
without objection that Bell does need secure inpatient treatment. 
 
But, Bell contends, under Code § 37.2-908(C), the opinion of 
an expert witness in a sexually violent predator case may “not be 
dispositive of whether the respondent is a sexually violent 
predator.”  However, the Code section permits an expert witness 
to “testify at the trial as to his diagnosis, his opinion as to 
whether the respondent meets the definition of a sexually violent 
predator, his recommendation as to treatment, and the basis for 
8 
 
his opinions,” and we are not precluded from considering and 
giving effect to the opinions expressed by Dr. Ebright and Dr. 
Carpenter on their "diagnos[e]s, . . . recommendation[s] as to 
treatment, and the bas[e]s for [their] opinions."  Code § 37.2-
908(C). 
 
We will first identify the evidence that may be considered 
favorable to Bell in carrying his burden of proving that he 
satisfied the first criterion of Code § 37.2-912(A). There is, of 
course, the opinion of Dr. Carpenter that Bell's "risk to 
sexually reoffend has been reduced as a result of the 11 months 
of intensive residential sex offender treatment services he has 
received at the VCBR."  Dr. Carpenter also stated that Bell has 
"reported that he is a Christian,” that “he and his family attend 
church on a regular basis,” that “he has continued to attend 
church services on a regular basis while at the VCBR,” that he 
“has continued to sing in the Choir,” and that “he reads his 
Bible on a regular basis.” 
 
In addition, Dr. Ebright noted Bell's "pro-social behavior" 
in cleaning "the water fountain on his unit after another 
resident urinated in it," being "responsible for the return of a 
library book, even though [there was] no record of him having the 
item," and being "pleasant and positive toward his new therapist 
when she introduced herself to him." 
9 
 
 
Dr. Ebright also stated that he had "the aptitude to 
participate in and benefit from sex offender treatment," that he 
could be "a pleasant and cooperative individual," that he 
possessed "the ability to communicate effectively when he desires 
to garner his resources to that end," and that if he chose "to 
focus his time and energy on working through the treatment 
program, he may make considerable treatment gains."  However, in 
the end, Dr. Ebright stated that Bell has just “not made this 
choice as of yet."  
 
So far as the first criterion set forth in Code § 37.2-
912(A) is concerned, the bulk of the rest of Bell's record may be 
considered as anything but favorable.  He is still in the first 
phase of the three-phase treatment program at VCBR, and he must 
reach Phase III before he can be considered for conditional 
release.  See Smith v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 178, 185, 694 S.E.2d 
578, 581 (2010). 
 
Also, residents are expected to attend all group therapy 
meetings.  According to Dr. Ebright, "group attendance is the 
most elemental aspect of treatment."  But Bell’s attendance rate 
in the first quarter of the twelve-month treatment period was 
79%, 5% below the 84% overall average of residents, 55% in the 
second quarter, 48% in the third quarter, and only 15% in the 
final quarter.  As Dr. Ebright put it, Bell “sort of opted out of 
treatment.”   
10 
 
 
Further, in the twelve-month period preceding his first 
annual review hearing, a total of twenty-four incidents were 
documented against him in “Resident Behavior Report[s],” 
including knocking on a window of a room where a staff member was 
working and sticking “his tongue out at her”; “1 incident of 
physical aggression”; engaging "in a ‘play fight’ with another 
resident [and] laughing when staff responded to what they 
believed to be an aggressive incident”; repeatedly entering or 
loitering in places where his presence was prohibited; “cursing 
loudly, physically posturing in an aggressive stance”; making 
“threats of violence”; calling a staff member a “dumb bitch”; 
“shouting obscenities”;  telling a staff member he did not “give 
a **** about any write-ups because they would not affect him in 
court”; and threatening another resident that he “would **** him 
up and break his mother******* neck.” 
 
Finally, one would think that if Bell were ever to 
change his pattern of behavior, it would be after the 
circuit court announced at the May 5, 2010 review hearing 
that it would grant Bell conditional release and he would 
want to make a good impression at the conditional release 
plan hearing on September 9, 2010.  Surprisingly, that is 
not the way Bell would have it.  At the hearing on the 
conditional release plan, Dr. Ebright was asked whether Bell 
11 
 
“ha[d] adjusted to treatment at the VCBR” since the review 
hearing.  She responded as follows: 
 
I would say it’s basically been unchanged from 
what was summarized and discussed at the time of his 
annual review. He continues to attend programming at a 
very low rate and to have numerous behavioral reports 
documenting deviant behavior, verbally abusive 
behavior, in one instance some physical aggression.  So 
it’s just the same pattern has continued. 
 
When asked how Bell responded to the staff’s intervention 
concerning these later behavioral shortcomings, Dr. Ebright 
stated that he was “uncooperative and argumentative and 
potentially verbally abusive.” 
CONCLUSION 
 
 
On this record, only one conclusion is permissible:  
Bell has not satisfied the first criterion set forth in Code 
§ 37.2-912(A) and he does need secure inpatient treatment.  
Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is without 
evidence to support it, and it will be reversed and final 
judgment will be entered here in favor of the Commonwealth. 
Reversed and final judgment.