COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Atlee, Ortiz and Lorish

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

ROBERT SZABO

MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 1196-22-2 JUDGE LISA M. LORISH

FEBRUARY 6, 2024

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

David E. Johnson, Judge

Stephen K. Armstrong (Armstrong Law LLC, on brief), for 

appellant.

Amanda L. Lavin, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, 

Attorney General; Maria N. Wittmann, Deputy Attorney General; 

Susan Barr, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for 

appellee.

Robert Szabo appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that he “remains a sexually violent 

predator” under Code § 37.2-910 and recommitting him to the custody of the Department of 

Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) for treatment. Szabo argues that the 

evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusion that he is a sexually violent predator. Because 

we cannot say the trial court’s judgment was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it, we 

affirm. 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

BACKGROUND1

In July 2000, Szabo was tried as a juvenile for the sodomy of a six year old. The 

Chesterfield Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court adjudicated Szabo delinquent and 

sentenced him to 12 months in jail with 10 months suspended. In February 2002, the Chesterfield 

County Circuit Court convicted Szabo of carnal knowledge of a child between the ages of 13 and 15

and sentenced him to 10 years’ incarceration with 7 years and 9 months suspended. In March 2006, 

the trial court revoked and resuspended a portion of Szabo’s previously-suspended sentence after 

finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. In April 2010, Szabo “agreed to be 

adjudged a sexually violent predator and to be committed to the custody of DBHDS for secure 

inpatient treatment until such time as [the trial court] may determine that it is safe to release

him.” 

After “carefully examin[ing Szabo] in proper person, under oath,” and considering the 

Commonwealth’s proffered summary of evidence it would present at a hearing, the trial court

found that Szabo was a sexually violent predator under Code § 37.2-900. Szabo had been 

diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and anxiety 

disorder. Szabo also struggled with substance abuse disorders. The combination of those 

conditions made it “difficult [for him] to control his predatory behavior” and “render[ed] him so 

likely to commit sexually violent offenses that he constitute[d] a menace to the health and safety of 

others.” Because there was “no suitable less restrictive alternative to involuntary secure inpatient 

treatment and hospitalization,” the trial court committed Szabo to DBHDS for treatment and 

confinement. 

1 When a respondent appeals a trial court’s judgment that he is a sexually violent predator, 

“we view the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below.” 

Shivaee v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 112, 127 (2005). “We also accord the Commonwealth the 

benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the evidence.” Id. (citing Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 

90, 95 (2000)).
- 3 -

In March 2013, the trial court found that Szabo remained a sexually violent predator but was 

eligible for conditional release under Code § 37.2-912, permitting him to receive outpatient 

treatment, provided he complied with conditional release plans developed by his treatment 

providers. In 2014, Szabo violated the conditional release plans by using controlled substances, 

beginning a romantic relationship without reporting it to his probation officer, and failing to attend 

sex offender treatment sessions. Thus, in March 2015, the trial court revoked Szabo’s conditional 

release and recommitted him to DBHDS for treatment and confinement. In July 2017, the trial 

court again found that Szabo remained a sexually violent predator but was eligible for conditional 

release, provided that he complied with the treatment plan developed by his providers. In 2018, he 

violated that plan by using controlled substances and failing to attend sex offender treatment

sessions. In March 2020, the trial court revoked his second conditional release and recommitted 

him to DBHDS for treatment and confinement. 

In November 2021, the trial court held an annual review hearing under Code § 37.2-910 to 

determine whether Szabo remained a sexually violent predator. The trial court qualified Dr. Mario 

Dennis, a forensic psychologist at DBHDS, as an expert in the diagnosis, treatment, and risk 

assessment of sex offenders. Dr. Dennis evaluated Szabo in anticipation of the annual review

hearing and submitted his report to the trial court under Code § 37.2-910(B). Dr. Dennis diagnosed 

Szabo with “other specified paraphilic disorder hebephilia” based on his sexual attraction to people 

“past the age of puberty, but in the early teens.” Dr. Dennis also diagnosed Szabo with antisocial 

personality disorder, bipolar disorder, four substance abuse disorders, and attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder. Dr. Dennis based his diagnoses on Szabo’s past criminal behavior and 

admission that he had engaged in “sexual relations with” some “teenage girls” when he was an 

adult. 
- 4 -

Szabo’s antisocial personality disorder manifested in “poor impulse control, aggressive 

behavior,” and “difficulty complying with rules of the law.” In addition, Szabo’s risk of reoffending 

would increase if he were under the influence of any controlled substance in “a high risk situation 

. . . in the context of being around a vulnerable individual.” Dr. Dennis was also concerned that 

Szabo’s difficulties with “impulse control and social judgment” would “pose a potential risk to the 

community” when in the presence of someone to whom he was sexually attracted in that age range. 

Since his recommitment to DBHDS, Szabo’s treatment had focused on certain “behavioral 

issues” and his refusal to “accept[] responsibility.” Szabo insisted that he was entitled to an 

individual room given his alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. But Dr. Dennis had not diagnosed 

Szabo with PTSD and opined that his “single cell entitlement” was a manifestation of his antisocial 

personality disorder. Szabo also “portrayed himself as a victim” and did not regularly attend his 

“return from release” treatment group. Dr. Dennis explained that given those circumstances, Szabo

only had recently begun treatment to address his disorders. Although Szabo had made “modest 

progress” in treatment, Dr. Dennis opined that his risk of reoffending remained high. 

In the “conclusions and findings” of his 2021 annual review evaluation of Szabo, Dr. Dennis 

explained that “[t]o be recommended for conditional release,” Szabo had to “consistently 

demonstrate sufficiently sustained changes in the thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behaviors 

and sufficient management of sexual arousal,” that would make it reasonable to conclude that, “with 

continued treatment, the change could be maintained and his risk managed in the community.” 

Considering Szabo’s continued “antisocial thinking and problematic behavior and self-regulation,” 

Dr. Dennis stated that the outpatient sex offender treatment program, which is “pitched to 

low-to-moderate risk offenders,” “would not be sufficient to manage his risks or sustain his 

progress.” Dr. Dennis acknowledged that Szabo had not committed any new sexual offenses in 

about 20 years but explained that not reoffending was a “baseline” and “not sufficient” to 
- 5 -

recommend a conditional release. Given Szabo’s continued struggles with impulse control and 

treatment, Dr. Dennis concluded that Szabo remained a sexually violent predator and needed 

“intensive inpatient treatment.” 

Dr. Salim Dahlvani, a consultant psychiatrist at DBHDS, testified that he had “seen” Szabo 

“a few times” and prescribed him certain medications. Dr. Dahlvani’s treatment of Szabo was 

interrupted by Szabo’s insistence that he was entitled to a “single room.” Dr. Michael Lasher, a 

clinical psychologist at DBHDS, also treated Szabo for several months and confirmed that his 

refusal to attend treatment groups had harmed his “progress towards conditional release.” Finally, 

Tonya Epps-Hurt, DBHDS’s housing coordinator, consulted Szabo’s treating physicians about his 

request for a “single cell” after his recommitment. Epps-Hurt initially denied Szabo’s request for a 

single room. When Szabo refused to promise not to harm his roommate, however, she assigned him 

to a single room. 

Following Epps-Hurt’s testimony, Szabo informed the trial court that he had no more 

evidence and wished to present argument. After argument by counsel, the trial court found “by 

clear and convincing evidence that . . . [Szabo] remain[ed] a sexually violent predator” and there 

was “no suitable less restrictive alternative to involuntary secure inpatient treatment.” Accordingly, 

it recommitted Szabo to DBHDS’s custody for treatment. Szabo appeals.

ANALYSIS

Szabo assigns error to the trial court’s determination that he remained a sexually violent 

predator.2 A “[s]exually violent predator” is “any person who (i) has been convicted of a sexually 

2 Szabo also assigned error to the trial court’s failure to allow him to address the court at 

his review hearing, arguing that he has a statutory right to do so under Code § 19.2-268. At oral 

argument, counsel for Szabo conceded that Szabo never asked for an opportunity to speak at the 

hearing, or argued he had a statutory right to do so, and that as a result we cannot consider the 

argument for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18 (“No ruling of the trial court . . . will be 

considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the 
- 6 -

violent 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.” Code § 37.2-900. At an annual review hearing, the Commonwealth must prove “by clear and 

convincing evidence that the respondent remains a sexually violent predator.” Code § 37.2-910(C). 

After finding that “the respondent remains a sexually violent predator,” the trial court “shall order 

that he remain in the custody of the Commissioner [of DBHDS] for secure inpatient hospitalization 

and treatment or that he be conditionally released.” Code § 37.2-910(D).

Generally, at a contested review hearing, the Commonwealth must present expert testimony 

to meet its burden of demonstrating that a respondent remains a sexually violent predator. 

Commonwealth v. Squire, 278 Va. 746, 752 (2009); Shivaee v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 112,

127-28 (2005). On appeal, however, we defer to the weight a trial court assigns to such expert 

testimony and will not reverse a trial court’s finding that a respondent is or is not a sexually violent 

predator “unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Squire, 278 Va. at 749 

(citing Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352 (1975)); Shivaee, 270 Va. at 128.

Szabo concedes that Dr. Dennis concluded that he remained a sexually violent predator and 

needed “intensive inpatient treatment.” But Szabo argues Dr. Dennis’s conclusions are not “borne 

out by the record,” which demonstrates that he has not committed any new sexual offenses for over 

20 years. Thus, Szabo argues the trial court was plainly wrong to consider it. 

We disagree and find that there was sufficient supporting evidence for the trial court’s 

judgment. Dr. Dennis diagnosed Szabo with “other specified paraphilic disorder hebephilia,” 

antisocial personality disorder, bipolar disorder, four substance abuse disorders, and attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder. For Szabo, that constellation of disorders led to his sexual attraction to 

time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of 

justice.”).
- 7 -

minors, along with “poor impulse control, aggressive behavior,” and “difficulty complying with 

rules of the law.” 

Although the record demonstrates that Szabo had not sustained any new convictions in 

about 20 years, Dr. Dennis explained that not reoffending was merely a “baseline” and was “not 

sufficient” to eliminate Szabo’s designation as a sexually violent predator. Most individuals 

committed to DBHDS are not in an environment where they have an opportunity to commit a new 

sexual offense. Because of Szabo’s behavioral issues, poor attendance at his treatment groups, and 

refusal to accept responsibility of his actions, Dr. Dennis determined that Szabo’s risk of 

reoffending remained high. Szabo struggled to dedicate himself to tasks that would demonstrate 

effective healthy self-regulation, healthy relationships, impulse control, and the ability to live a 

healthy life in the community, thus Dr. Dennis explained that the designation remained. In fact, 

Szabo’s persistent recalcitrant behavior meant that he had begun treatment for his disorders only 

recently and had made only “modest progress” since his recommitment. See Shivaee, 270 Va. at 

127-28 (affirming the trial court’s finding that the respondent was a sexually violent predator when 

two experts testified that because of his mental abnormality, he found it “difficult to control his 

predatory behavior” and was “likely” to reoffend). 

Given Dr. Dennis’s testimony, we will not disturb the trial court’s finding that Szabo 

remained a sexually violent predator.

CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.