J-S19026-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DAVID GLENN WILLIAMS

Appellant No. 2338 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 30, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002487-2013

BEFORE: STABILE, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2015

David Glenn Williams (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas following his 

guilty plea conviction for child pornography.1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, dated 

October 14, 2014 (“Trial Court Opinion”), pp. 1-4. Therefore, we have no 

reason to restate them. 

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

I. WHETHER SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO 

SUPPORT [SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR (“SVP”)] 

CLASSIFICATION OF APPELLANT WHERE APPELLANT HAD 

A HISTORY OF VIEWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, HAD ONE 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).
J-S19026-15

- 2 -

PRIOR CONVICTION FOR STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSAULT 

AND NO HISTORY OF FAILED TREATMENT?

II. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION IN CLASSIFYING APPELLANT AS AN SVP 

WHERE IT DID NOT INDICATE ITS REASONS, WHERE 

THERE WAS A LACK OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE 

STATUTORY FACTORS?

Appellant’s Brief, p. 5.

Our review of Appellant’s SVP status implicates the following 

principles: 

The determination of a defendant’s SVP status may only be 

made following an assessment by the Board and hearing before 

the trial court. 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 

sexually violent predator. 

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. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 941-42 (Pa.Super.2010).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan 

Mark, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, pp. 4-8) (finding Commonwealth 

proved Appellant was an SVP with clear and convincing evidence, including 

the uncontradicted assessment of the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board’s 
J-S19026-15

- 3 -

counselor and evaluator, which considered all relevant factors listed in 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9799.24, including Appellant’s personal and criminal history and 

diagnosis of other specified paraphilic disorder, in determining Appellant’s 

SVP status). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/21/2015