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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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
1 

computer to Higdon. Trooper Finn interviewed Defendant regarding the thumb drive. 

and videos which Defendant had given to Higdon's son when Defendant loaned his 

friend. Higdon gave Trooper Finn a thumb.drive containing child pornographic images 

regarding child pornography supplied by Defendant to Higdon's son, and his son's 

Lehighton Pennsylvania State Police Barracks to speak with Trooper Patrick Finn 

On April 5, 2011, Defendant's co-worker, Darren Higdon Sr., went to the 

summary: 

hearing provide a full recitation of the relevant factual and procedural history. In 

which was not corrected by Defendant, and our remarks at Defendant's sentencing 

The Affidavit of Probable Cause, the Pre-Sentence Investigation report ("PSI") 

to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant. to Pa.RAP. 1925(b). 

Defendant complied. We now file this opinion in accordance with Pa.RAP. 1925(a). 

sentence entered on June 30, 2014. After the appeal was filed, we directed Defendant 

Defendant David Glenn Williams ("Defendant") filed an appeal from the judgment of 

Following the denial of his post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, 

OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 

Defendant 

APPEAL DOCKET NO. 

DAVID GLENN WILLIAMS, 2338 EDA 2014 

v. 

NO. 2487 CR 2013 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY 

FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

··,, 

,i Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
2 

sentencing hearing. 

Prior to sentencing, SOAB issued a report identifying Defendant as an SVP. 

Accordingly, we ordered that an SVP hearing be held immediately prior to the 

containing its conclusions. In addition, a sentencing hearing was scheduled. 

(SOAB) conduct a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) assessment and file a report 

Department prepare a PSI report and that the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board 

After accepting the plea, we entered an order directing that our Probation 

Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. 

Abuse of Children for possession of the child pornography. On January 7, 2014, he pied 

guilty to Sexual Abuse of Children, a felony of the third degree. As part of the plea, the 

On August 1, 2013, Defendant was charged in this case with six counts of Sexual 

Offenders Treatment. 

months to 1 O years in a State Correctional Institution. On June 10, 2013, Defendant was. 

denied parole by the Board of Probation and Parole for failing to complete required Sex 

On June 1, 2011, Defendant was arrested and charged in a separate matter with 

sexually assaulting a 14 year-old girl. On March 6, 2012, he pied guilty to Statutory 

Sexual Assault, a felony of the second degree. He was sentenced by this Court to 22 

pornography. 

revealed six video files containing child pornography along with one deleted file of child 

and stated that he masturbated to the videos. A computer analysis of the thumb drive 

year-old females, confessed that he was attracted to and aroused by young females, 

Defendant admitted to downloading the videos of child pornography depicting 12 to 14 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
3 

After considering the evidence presented during the hearing, including the SOAB 

report, we found that the Commonwealth had proven by clear and convincing evidence 

that Defendant was an SVP. We found Ms. Brust to be credible, concluded that she 

properly considered statutory SVP factors, and determined that her diagnoses and 

conclusions were supported by both the facts and the law. (N.T., 6/30/2014, at 25-32). 

On June 30, 2014, the SVP hearing was convened as scheduled. During the 

SVP hearing, the Commonwealth presented the SOAB report together with the 

testimony of Paula Brust, MA, LPG, NCC, the evaluator who had authored the report. 

(N.T., 6/30/14 at 4-18; SOAB Report). Based on her evaluation of all available 

information, including Defendant's admission to viewing child pornography for decades, 

the fact that he is aroused by young girls, his prior criminal history including his 

conviction for Statutory Sexual Assault on a young girl, and his refusal to complete 

sexual offender · treatment, Ms. Brust diagnosed Defendant as having a mental 

abnormality or personality disorder, namely, Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder. (Id. at 

9-13; SOAB Report at 7). Further, Ms. Brust found that Defendant exhibited predatory 

behavior by, among other things, his inability to control self-defeating behaviors, the 

escalation over time of his paraphilic behavior that has manifested itself in his searching 

for, viewing, saving, and masturbating to child pornography for at least 20 years and 

culminated with his preying upon a young girl for months and then sexual assaulting 

her. (Id. at 9-13; SOAB report at 8-9). Based on these findings, Ms. Brust concluded 

that Defendant met the criterion to be classified as an SVP. (Id. at 9-13; SOAB Report). 

Defendant did not present testimony or evidence to contradict Ms. Brust's findings. (Id. 

at 20). 

----·-----· -····---·----···- ··-· 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
4 

·--- ·- ·-------·---···-·-----·~-~-----~--- 

A challenge to a determination of SVP status requires us to 

view the evidence: 

[l]n the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. The reviewing court may not 

weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment 

for that of the trial court. The clear and 

convincing standard requires evidence that is 

so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to 

enable [the trier of fact] to come to a clear 

conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the 

precise facts [at] issue. 

applied in a challenge to an SVP determination: 

Our Superior Court recently articulated the standard and scope of review to be 

meritless. 

(Defendant's Rule 1925{b) Statement, 111). Defendant's assignments of error are 

and engaging one time in a sexual relationshlp with a fourteen year old girl." 

solely on his own admissions to viewing child pornography for a period of thirty years, 

SOAB "erroneously determined the Defendant to be a Sexually Violent Predator based 

classifying him as an SVP. This contention is based on Defendant's assertion that 

and abused our discretion by accepting the findings of SOAB and Ms. Brust and 

Reduced to basics, Defendant's two assignments of error contend that we erred 

Subsequently, Defendant filed a post-sentence motion asserting that we erred in 

classifying him as an SVP. We denied Defendant's motion, and this appeal followed. 

directed that he comply with the provisions of Megan's Law, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 

months nor more than 24 months. In addition, we classified Defendant as an SVP and 

conclusion of the hearing, we sentenced Defendant to incarceration of not less than 12 

After the SVP hearing concluded, the sentencing hearing was convened. At the 

9799.10 et. seq. (Id. at 25-29; Order entered June 30, 2014). 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
5 

Commonwealth v. Plucinski, 868 A.2d 20, 25 

(Pa.Super.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). The scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. 

Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 

614, 21 A.3d 1189 (2011). "[A]n expert's opinion, which is . 

rendered to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, is 

Itself evidence." Commonwealth v. Fuentes, 991 A.2d 935, 

944 (Pa.Super.2010) (en bane), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 645, 

12 A.3d 370 (2010) (emphasis in original). 

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support an SVP designation requires the reviewing court to 

accept the undiminished record of the case in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Meals, 

590 Pa. 110, 119, 912 A.2d 213, 218 (2006). The reviewing 

court must examine all of the Commonwealth's evidence 

without consideration of its admissibility. Commonwealth v. 

Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1035 (Pa.Super.2011). A successful 

sufficiency challenge can lead to an outright grant of relief 

such as a reversal of the SVP designation, whereas a 

challenge to the admissibility of the expert's opinion and 

testimony is an evidentiary question which, if successful, can 

lead to a new SVP hearing. Commonwealth v. Sanford, 580 

Pa. 604, 608-09, 863 A.2d 428, 431 (2004) (distinguishing 

concepts of sufficiency of evidence versus admissibility of 

evidence, but refusing to render any opinion on whether SVP 

expert's "reliance on the affidavit of probable cause and the 

charging documents somehow rendered her testimony 

inadmissible as this issue is not before this court"). 

As a general rule, [the] standard of review of a 

trial court's evidentiary ruling . . . is limited to 

determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion. An abuse of· discretion may not be 

found merely because an appellate court might 

have reached a different conclusion, but 

requires a result of manifest 

unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, 

or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be 

clearly erroneous. 

Commonwealth v. Dengler, 586 Pa. 54, 65, 890 A.2d 372, 

379 (2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Our task in either scenario is one of review, not one of 

reweighing or assessing the evidence in the first instance. 

Meals, supra at 127, 912 A.2d at 223. 

Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337, 355-56 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

···--···· 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
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. 

must be considered: 

predatory sexually violent offenses." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12. The following elements 

has "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him] likely to engage in 

The second element the Commonwealth was required to prove is that Defendant 

third degree, which is a sexually violent offense listed in Section 9799.12. Thus, the first 

element the Commonwealth was required to prove was undisputedly satisfied. 

In this case, Defendant pied guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Child, a felony of the 

Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624, 629 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 919 

A.2d 954 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Kopicz, 840 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

the defendant's ·status as an SVP. See Commonwealth v. Prendes, supra; 

Commonwealth meets this burden, the trial court then makes the final determination on 

engage in predatory sexually violent offenses." 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9799.12. When the 

42 · Pa.C.S.A Section 9799.14. Secondly, the Commonwealth must show that the 

individual has "a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him} likely to 

the individual has been convicted of at least one sexually violent offense, as set forth in 

9799.24(e)(3). To deem an individual an SVP, the Commonwealth must first show that 

The current version of Megan's Law requires that the Commonwealth prove by 

clear and convincing evidence that an individual is an SVP. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

=-=====!!============~=========,-'·--· ·--- 

6 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
7 

testimony. 

in her written report and discussed the factors and corresponding facts during her 

classification as an SVP. She outlined the facts she considered relevant to each factor 

reasonable degree of professional certainty, that Defendant meets the criteria for 

pertaining to Defendant's personal and criminal history, she had formed an opinion, to a 

based on her consideration of the statutory factors, the facts of this case, arid the facts 

statutory factors she was required to consider under Section 9799.24(b). She said that, 

that in performing her assessment of Defendant, she had considered each of the 

ordered sex-offender assessment and prepared the SOAB report. Ms. Brust testified 

practicing counselor of sex offenders and the SOAB evaluator who performed the courtHere, the Commonwealth relied upon the report and testimony of Ms. Brust, a 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(b). 

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 a sexual offender 

assessment field as criteria reasonably related to the risk 

of re-offense. 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM
Date: October 14, 2014 C') 

- 

rn J. ' ;o 

;:;;, 

(''", 

C) 

c: 

-·q 

c; ::n (.') 

.,; .. 3 0 

c::: 

:·< >->. :.~J 

C) -I 

{/) 

....... 

crt 

Cc: Superior Court of Pennsylvania 

Jonathan Mark, J. 

District Attorney (CR) 

Public Defender (RS) 

8 

supported by the facts and the law and should be affirmed. 

In sum, we believe that our classification of Defendant as an SVP is fully 

an SVP. 

more than sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant was 

Viewed in the light of the applicable ·standards, Ms. Brust's testimony and report are 

report, diagnoses, and conclusions were fully supported by both the facts and the law. 

We found that Ms. Brust's uncontradicted testimony was credible and that her 

committing sexual crimes." (SOAB report at 8). 

an internal drive towards sexual offending and his disorder predisposes him towards 

to offending" and his "Other Specified Paraphilia Disorder will cause him to experience 

at 9). Furthermore, Ms. Brust concluded that Defendant "has a sexually deviant pathway 

after he "preyed upon the child ... and planned his offense for months[.}" (SOAB report 

that this was not enough and he acted out criminally with an actual 14 year old child" 

for, viewed, saved and masturbated to child pornography" and "[a]t some point, he felt 

and intent consistent with predatory behavior. Specifically, Defendant "actively searched 

Paraphilic Disorder and found Defendant's prior and current offenses showed planning 

under Section 9799.24, Ms. Brust diagnosed Defendant as having an Other Specified 

this case and Defendant's personal and criminal history, and considering the factors 

In summary, based on a review of all available records, including the record in 

Circulated 03/27/2015 02:05 PM