J-S21036-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSEPH KULP, III,

Appellant No. 2707 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 28, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-13-CR-0000750-2012;

CP-13-CR-0000754-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*

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

Appellant, Joseph Kulp, III, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following a jury conviction of two counts each of indecent assault 

without consent and indecent assault of a person less than sixteen years of 

age, defendant at least four years older.1 Specifically, he challenges his 

classification as a sexually violent predator (SVP). We affirm on the basis of 

the trial court opinion.

The charges in this matter arose from two separate incidents over one 

year with one minor victim. In its October 27, 2014 opinion, the trial court 

fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(1) and (8), respectively.
J-S21036-15

- 2 -

case. (See Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/14, at 1-6). Therefore, we have no 

need to restate them here.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

[1]. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by considering the 

[s]exual [o]ffender[] report provided by Mary E. Muscari as this 

report was provided well beyond the time limits afforded under 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24?

[2]. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in determining the 

Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to classify [Appellant] 

as a sexually violent predator?

[3]. Whether the statutory language of Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9799.10 et. seq, as it applies to [Appellant] is unconstitutionally 

vague and overbroad?

(Appellant’s Brief, at 4).

Appellant first challenges Dr. Muscari’s assessment as untimely under 

section 9799.24. Therefore, he raises a question of statutory construction. 

It is well-settled that “[b]ecause statutory interpretation is a question of law, 

our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” 

Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 2015 WL 668038, at *3 (Pa. Feb. 17, 

2015).

Appellant’s second claim raises “[q]uestions of evidentiary sufficiency[, 

which] present questions of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and 

our scope of review is plenary. In conducting sufficiency review, we must 

consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 
J-S21036-15

- 3 -

which prevailed upon the issue at trial.” Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 

A.2d 213, 218 (Pa. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In Appellant’s third issue, he challenges the constitutionality of a 

statute. Therefore, “[a]s the constitutionality of a statute is a pure question 

of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is 

plenary.” Commonwealth v. Omar, 981 A.2d 179, 185 (Pa. 2009) 

(citation omitted).

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude 

that there is no merit to Appellant’s first two issues and his third issue is 

waived. The trial court properly disposes of all of the questions presented. 

(See Trial Ct. Op., at 7-16) (finding: (1) consideration of late sexual 

offender report was proper where Appellant had the SOAB report over ten 

months before hearing and therefore was not prejudiced; (2) 

Commonwealth presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to classify 

Appellant as SVP; and (3) Appellant’s third issue too vague for meaningful 

review). We note that contrary to the trial court’s conclusion that 

Appellant’s third issue is meritless, a vague claim or argument that impedes 

review is waived. See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 4151 

(Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011). Accordingly, 

we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion (except for the conclusion 

that Appellant’s third issue is meritless).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S21036-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/21/2015
[FS-50-14] 

1 

1 18 Pa. C. S . A. § 312 6 (a) ( 1) . 

two (2) counts of indecent assault of a person less than sixteen 

guilty of two (2) counts of indecent assault without consent1 and 

On March 7, 2013, a jury of his peers found Defendant 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

set forth hereinafter. 

that the aforesaid Order of Court be affirmed for the reasons 

Pe nns y Lv an i a Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 (a) and recommend 

We file the following Memorandum Opinion pursuant to 

28, 2014, classifying Defendant as a sexually violent predator. 

has taken this appeal from the Order of Court entered on July 

Defendant, Joseph J. Kulp, III (hereinafter "Defendant"), 

Serfass, J. - October 27, 2014 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Michael S. Greek, Esquire 

Assistant District Attorney 

Paul John Levy, Esquire 

Defendant 

JOSEPH J. KULP III, 

No 750 CR 2012 .. 

-:, 

..-.:::, 

754 CR 2012 .: ·-. ·- -· 

~:: :;~'. i~: :! <::') 

c·:· 

' ~· =~"'··~· t~: .. ·-·-·, 

r··:1 

.-·,) 

( . 

---.! 

-·· u . , 

- 

.. 

' -- 

-z-: 

-· .. 

N 

Counsel for the Commonwea.ilth 

Counsel for the Defendant 

vs. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
[FS-50-14] 

2 

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126(a) (8). 

consideration of the hearing testimony, SOAB report and 

Defendant's counsel submitted his brief on July 24, 2014. Upon 

classification of the defendant as a sexually violent predator. 

additional time within which to submit a brief concerning the 

2014. Following the hearing, Defendant's counsel was granted 

classified as a sexually violent predator was held on July 7, 

assessment and the hearing to determine whether he should be 

hearing. Ultimately, Defendant elected not to submit a separate 

assessment prepared for submission at the classification 

filed because Defendant sought to have his own sexual offender 

granted by this Court. Six (6) of those continuance motions were 

continuance, all of which were unopposed by the Commonwealth and 

2014, Defendant filed seven (7) separate motions for 

8, 2013. Between the dates of October 7, -2013 and April 29, 

this Court issued an order scheduling that hearing for October 

classified as a sexually violent predator. On September 4, 2013, 

to Schedule Hearing" to determine whether Defendant should be 

August 30, 2013, counsel for the Commonwealth filed a "Praecipe 

and the subsequent report was issued on August 28, 2013. On 

"SOAB"). Defendant was assessed by the SOAB on August 24, 2013, 

assessed by the Sexual Offender Assessment Board (hereinafter 

issued an Order on May 30, 2013, directing Defendant to be 

years of age, defendant at least four years older.2 This Court 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
9. The defendant was incarcerated for his prior conviction of 

indecent assault. That offense took place at the same time 

period as the instant offense. There is no evidence to 

[FS-50-14) 

3 

8. The defendant has two (2) prior convictions for driving 

under the influence and one (1) prior conviction for 

indecent assault; 

7. There is no evidence to indicate that the victims had any 

mental incapacities or physical disabilities; however, the 

victim's age did make her vulnerable and incapable of 

consenting to sexual activity; 

6. There was no indication of sadistic behavior or unusual 

cruelty in connection with these offenses; 

5. The defendant was an acquaintance of the victim. He used 

that relationship to exploit the trust of the victim and to 

gain access to her. The victim was fourteen (14) years old 

at the time of the offense; 

4. The defendant touched the victim's buttocks on two (2) 

occasions; 

3. The defendant did not exceed the force necessary to achieve 

the commission of the offenses. The defendant abused his 

relationship with the victim as an acquaintance and a 

member of her church; 

2. This case involves a single minor victim. The subject 

offenses against the victim, however, spanned a period of 

one (1) year and included two (2) instances of indecent 

assault on the victim; 

1. The defendant has been convicted of two -(2) counts of 

indecent assault, which are sexually violent offenses as 

defined in 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9791; 

Law: 

which included the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

of July 28, 2014 was accompanied by a Determination of Court 

classifying Defendant as a sexually violent predator. Our Order 

Defendant's brief, this Court issued an Order on July 28, 2014 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
[FS-50-14] 

4 

a. The defendant suffers from 

17. The defendant meets the following criteria for Paraphilia, 

and in the following ways: 

16. The defendant meets the diagnostic criteria for a mental 

abnormality and a personality disorder; to wit, Paraphilia; 

c. The defendant has been convicted of a 

prior act of indecent assault on a 

minor female. 

b. The defendant meets the diagnostic 

criteria for paraphilia; and 

a. The defendant has a deviant sexual 

interest in minor female .victims; 

15. The following facts are supportive in the Sexual Offenders 

Assessment that has been filed as criteria reasonably 

related to the risks of re-offending: 

14. The defendant has a history of sexually assaulting two (2) 

minor females, ages 13 and 14. One of these victims was a 

stranger and the victim in this matter was an acquaintance; 

13. The defendant fits the diagnostic criteria for paraphilia; 

12. The defendant used alcohol and started smoking marijuana 

during high school. Although the defendant has been 

convicted of DUI on two (2) occasions, he maintained that 

his alcohol use has not gotten him in trouble. There is 

no evidence that he was abusing drugs or alcohol at the 

time of his offenses; 

11. The defendant was thirty-eight (38) years old at the time 

of his offenses. His age may be consistent with the 

criteria for a personality disorder, and his age and the 

age of the victim may be consistent with the criteria for 

paraphilic behavior; 

10. The defendant has not participated in any type of treatment 

to date, including sex offender treatment; 

establish that the defendant has the ability to learn from 

his experience or see the presence of self-defeating 

behaviors; 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
25. The defendant therefore is found to be a sexually violent 

predator within the meaning of Megan's Law. 

[FS-50-14] 

5 

24. The defendant does suffer from a mental abnormality or 

personality disorder that makes him likely to engage in 

predatory sexually violent offenses; and 

23. The Court finds as credible the report of Mary E. Muscari, 

who completed the Sexual Offenders Assessment on behalf of 

the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board; 

22. The defendant's offenses were predatory in nature, in that 

he was an acquaintance of the victim. He promoted, and 

possibly established the relationship in order to support 

victimization; 

21. The defendant has a sexually deviant pathway to offending. 

He has committed sexual offenses. Sexual deviance with a 

history of sexual offending increases the likelihood of reoffending; 

20. Paraphilia over-rode the defendant's emotional and 

volitional control, and he was not able to manage his 

offending; 

19. Paraphilia is a lifetime disorder; 

18. The defendant's offenses were motivated by his disorders or 

conditions; 

c. Acting on these urges. 

b. The defendant had ample opportunity 

to· control his impulses. He saw both 

victims from his car and could have 

driven away to control his urges. 

Defendant parked his vehicle and 

approached his victims. Defendant 

followed the victim of his prior 

offense when she tried to avoid him. 

In the instant action, Defendant 

offended the victim in the presence 

of another minor; and 

paraphilia. The condition may first 

emerge following a crisis, but is a 

lifetime disorder; 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
[FS-50-14] 

6 

3. The statutory language of the Sexually Violent Predator 

Statute as it applies to Mr. Joseph Kulp is 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and as such is in 

violation of Mr. Kulp's Pennsylvania and U.S. 

Constitutional rights. 

2. Trial Court erred in determining the Commonwealth's 

evidence was sufficient to classify Mr. Kulp a sexually 

violent predator; and 

1. The Trial Court erred by considering the Sexual Offender's 

report provided by Mary E. Muscari as this report was 

provided well beyond the time limits afforded under 42 

Pa.C.S.A. Section 9799.24 (a) and (d); 

issues on appeal: 

In his Concise Statement, Defendant raises the following 

ISSUES 

served his Concise Statement on September 16, 2014. 

appeal. In compliance with that Order, Defendant filed and 

undersigned, a concise statement of the matters complained of on 

2014, directing Defendant to file of record and serve upon the 

Procedure 1925(b), this Court issued an Order on August 26, 

Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

of Appeal of our sentencing orders to the Superior Court of 

county probation. On August 26, 2014, Defendant filed a Notice 

four (24) months less one (1) day followed by one (1) year of 

Facility of not less than six (6) months nor more than twentyaggregate term of imprisonment in the Carbon County Correctional 

Also on July 28, 2014, we sentenced the defendant to an 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
1. Facts of the current offense, including: 

a. Whether the offense involved multiple victims. 

b. Whether the individual exceeded the means 

necessary to achieve the offense. 

c. The nature of the sexual contact with the 

victim. 

d. Relationship of the individual to the victim. 

[FS-50-14] 

7 

of the following statutory factors: 

assessment is to include, but not be limited to, an examination 

assessment by the SOAB. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.14. The 

9799.24(a). Indecent assault is a sexual offense requiring 

offense are to be assessed by the SOAB. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 

Individuals convicted of at least one sexually violent 

mandated. 

9799.14(d) [Tier III offenses], a lifetime registration is 

individuals convicted of any offense listed in section 

(25) year period of registration is mandated. And for those 

listed in section 9799.14(c) [Tier II offenses], a twenty-five 

those individuals convicted of any of the criminal offenses 

registration with the Pennsylvania State Police is mandated. For 

9799.14(b) [Tier I offenses], a fifteen (15) year period of 

convicted of any of the criminal offenses set forth in section 

forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. section 9799.15(a). For those individuals 

registration for individuals convicted of these offenses is set 

set forth at 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.14 while the period of 

A three-tiered classification system for sexual offenses is 

DISCUSSION 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
[FS-50-14] 

8 

right to counsel, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, 

9799.24(e) (1). At that hearing, the individual is given the 

individual is a sexually violent predator. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 

attorney, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the 

9799.24 (d). Upon the filing of a praecipe by the district 

its assessment to the district attorney. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 

an individual's conviction to submit a written report containing 

9799.24(a). The SOAB is given ninety (90) days from the date of 

individual to be assessed by the SOAB. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 

violent offense, a court shall issue an order for the convicted 

Within ten (10) days of being convicted of a sexually 

4. Factors that are supported in a sexual offender 

assessment field as reasonably related to the 

risk of reoffense. 

3. Characteristics of the individual, including: 

a. Age of the individual. 

b. Use of illegal drugs by the individual. 

c. Any mental illness, mental disability or mental 

abnormality. 

d. Behavioral characteristics that contribute to 

the individual's conduct. 

2. Prior offense history, including: 

a. The individual's prior criminal record. 

b. Whether the individual completed any prior 

sentences. 

c. Whether the individual participated in 

available programs for sexual offenders. 

e. Age of the victim. 

f. Whether the offense included a display of 

unusual cruelty by the individual during the 

commission of the crime. 

g. The mental capacity of the victim. 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
submitted beyond the time limits provided under 42 

[FS-50-14] 

9 

prepared by Dr. Mary E. Muscari because that report was 

the written report of the Sexual Offender Assessment Board 

Defendant argues that this Court erred in considering 

I. Trial Court's Consideration of Sexual Offender's Report 

Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.lS(a) (6) 

the Pennsylvania State Police for the life of the individual. 42 

determined to be a sexually violent predator must register with 

facilitate or support victimization." Id. An individual who is 

maintained or promoted, in whole or in part, in order to 

person with whom a relationship has been initiated, established, 

Predatory is defined as "[a]n act directed at a stranger or at a 

person a menace to the health and safety of other persons." Id. 

commission of criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes the 

the person in a manner that predisposes that person to the 

of a person that affects the emotional or volitional capacity of 

abnormality is defined as "[a] congenital or acquired condition 

violent offenses." 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.12. A mental 

that makes the individual likely to engage in predatory sexually 

assessments) due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder 

a sexually violent predator under section 9799.24 (relating to 

convicted of an [enumerated offense] ... who ... is determined to be 

A "sexually violent predator" is defined as "an individual 

and the right to be heard. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.24 (e) (2). 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
3 Defendant was convicted on March 7, 2013 an~ this Court issued its Order 

directing Defendant to be assessed by the SOAB on May 30, 2013. 

4 The report was issued on August 28, 2013. 

5 A total of nine (9) post-verdict motions for continuance were filed in this 

matter, all of which were filed by Defendant. As described hereinabove, 

seven (7) of Defendant's continuance motions were filed after the SOAB issued 

its assessment. Clearly, prejudice resulting from a lack of timeliness was 

not an issue that was contemplated by, nor a concern of, the defendant. 

[FS-50-14] 

10 

not always serve the interests of fairness and justice." Womer 

themselves, and . . the rigid application of our rules does 

Furthermore, "[P]rocedural rules are not ends in [and of] 

issues. Allison v. Merris, 493 A.2d 738, 740 (Pa. Super. 1985) 

Trial courts have broad discretion in considering procedural 

v. Ritter, Todd & Haayen, 418 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa. Super. 1980) 

brought about by plaintiff's delay." American Bank & Trust Co. 

present factual information in the event of trial which has been 

"includes any substantial diminution of defendant's ability to 

this Court's Order and the SOAB's late filing.5 Prejudice 

argue, that he has been prejudiced as a result of the timing of 

Defendant cannot demonstrate, and he does not attempt to 

filings. 

includes a provision for the remedy or consequence of late 

limit provided by section 9799.24(d)4, neither section 

SOAB provided its report beyond the ninety (90) day time 

day time limit provided by section 9799.24(a)3, and that the 

Defendant to be assessed by the SOAB beyond the ten (10) 

undisputed that this Court entered its Order requiring 

Pa.C.S.A. sections 9799.24(a) and (d). While it is 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
times at the request of Defendant's counsel. 

[FS-50-14] 

11 

offender assessment hearing were continued a total of nine (9) 

so given that Defendant's sentencing proceeding and sexual 

Defendant as a sexually violent predator. This is particularly 

errors that do not affect this Court's ability to classify 

prejudice and, therefore, the late filings represent harmless 

the late filings. Accordingly, Defendant has not suffered any 

benefit of the procedural protections afforded to him, despite 

following the hearing. Thus, Defendant has enjoyed the full 

opportunity to submit a brief in support of his positions 

own evidence. Furthermore, Defendant's counsel was afforded the 

expert and Defendant was provided the opportunity to present his 

hearing, Defendant's counsel cross-examined the Commonwealth's 

months prior to the sexual offender assessment hearing. At the 

Defendant had the SOAB report for a period in excess of ten (10) 

case has not been adversely affected by the late filings. 

In the instant matter, Defendant's ability to present his 

A.2d 1270, 1272 (Pa. 1986). 

quoting Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 517 

Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 561 A.2d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 1989), 

I II requirements of the rule and no prejudice would result . 

errors when a party has substantially complied with the 

the policy of the Superior Court " ... to overlook ... procedural 

v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269, 276 (Pa. 2006). Moreover, it has been 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
[FS-50-14] 

12 

may not make credibility determinations. Commonwealth v. Geiter, 

presented at hearing. Id. at 222. Further, the appellate court 

one of review, and not of weighing and assessing the evidence 

classification of a defendant as a sexually violent predator is 

The task of the Superior Court on appeal of a trial court's 

213, 219 (Pa. 2006). 

classification is proper. Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 

conclusion, without hesitation, that the sexually violent 

convincing that the fact-finder may arrive at a clear 

classification must be so clear, direct, weighty, and 

offered in support of the sexually violent. predator 

of clear and convincing evidence means that the evidence 

predator. 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.24 (e) (3). The standard 

the defendant should be designated as a sexually violent 

the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 

court conducts a hearing at which the Commonwealth bears 

assessment and submits its report to the Commonwealth, the 

After the SOAB completes the sexual offender 

evidence was not sufficient for such a classification. 

violent predator. Defendant asserts that the Commonwealth's 

determination that he should be classified as a sexually 

Defendant's second claim challenges this Court's 

II. The Conunonwealth's Evidence was Sufficient to Classify 

Defendant as a Sexually Violent Predator 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
violent predator determination hearing. The report and 

[FS-50-14] 

13 

SOAB, together with Dr. Muscari's testimony at the sexually 

assessment report prepared by Dr. Muscari, a member of the 

sexually violent predator, the Commonwealth relied upon the 

absent, in a particular case. Id. 

To establish that Defendant should be classified as a 

is not required to show that any one factor is present, or 

all the factors listed under Section 9799.24, the Commonwealth 

abnormalities. Id. ·at 221. Thus, although the SOAB must examine 

presence or absence of one or more particular types of mental 

the presence or absence of one or more factors may suggest the 

predator classification. Meals, 912 A.2d at 220-223. Instead, 

them, must be present in order to support a sexually violent 

Section 9799.24 and listed hereinabove, or any particular set of 

that all of the assessment factors set forth at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 

Meals, 912 A.2d at 223. There exists no statutory requirement 

prerequisites for a sexually violent predator classification. 

the substantive evidence to establish the statutory 

Expert reports, along with expert testimony, may constitute 

(Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 882 477 (Pa. 2005). 

to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Moody, 843 A.2d 402, 408 

evidence and its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable 

(Pa. 2007). Rather, the appellate court shall view all the 

929 A.2d 648, 650 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 940 A.2d 362 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
of insufficiency is without merit. 

[FS-50-14] 

14 

sexually violent predator. Accordingly, Defendant's claim 

to support the Court's classification of Defendant as a 

was clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing 

favorable to the Commonwealth, it is apparent that there 

Viewing Dr. Muscari's report in the light most 

classified as a sexually violent predator. 

certainty that Defendant meets the criteria to be 

concluded within a reasonable degree of professional 

the factors listed in Section 9799.24; Dr. Muscari 

that he would re-offend. Based upon her consideration of 

behavior and that his mental abnormality made it likely 

Dr. Muscari concluded that Defendant engaged in predatory 

determined that Defendant met the criteria for paraphilia. 

Based upon her assessment of Defendant, Dr. Muscari 

cross-examine Dr. Muscari at that hearing. 

assessment hearing and was offered ample opportunity to 

Defendant had the report prior to the sexual offender 

the Sexually Violent Predator Statue. Further, counsel for 

the present offenses, in light of each factor enumerated in 

background information, including the facts· pertaining to 

analysis and commentary as to how she evaluated Defendant's 

specified in 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 9799.24 and provided her 

testimony offered by Dr. Muscari referred to the factors 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
merely guessing as to what statutory provisions the 

[FS-50-14] 

15 

applied to Defendant. Accordingly, this Court would be 

statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as 

section 9791 et. seq., nor explains how any section of that 

Registration of Sexual Offender's Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 

Statuteμ, which we understand to be a reference to the 

specific provision of the "Sexually Violent Predator 

Defendant's concise statement neither identifies any 

2 000) . 

citing Giles v. Douglass, 747 A.2d 1236, 1237 (Pa. Super. 

Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 2000), 

appellant's effort "is not enough for meaningful review." 

what issues an appellant is appealing," then the 

686 (Pa. Super. 2001). If a reviewing court must "guess 

statement at all. Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 

statement is the functional equivalent of no concise 

court to identify the issues raised on appeal, such 

If a concise statement is too vague as to allow the 

under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. 

Defendant and is, therefore, in violation of his rights 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to 

of the "Sexually Violent Predator Statute" is 

Defendant's final claim is that the statutory language 

III. Alleged Unconstitutionality of Statutory Language 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM
OCT 2 8 20M [FS-50-14] 

16 

,~LERI'~ OF COURTS 

CODEC' 

; - ., __ : __ ~ 

~--.'· --! .. ~ 

·r: . .-., r0 

__, 

-·- :1 

·---;·' ~--- c;~: ~~· . - .. - ~ 

LSL-~~ 

Steven R. Serfa£s, J. 

BY THE COURT: 

Defendant as a sexually violent predator be affirmed. 

our Order of Court entered on July 28, 2014 classifying 

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully recommend that 

CONCLUSION 

this claim to be meritless. 

Defendant's third and final claim. As a result, we deem 

this Court cannot provide a meaningful review of 

vagueness of Defendant's concise statement in this regard, 

defendant is making reference. Therefore, given the 

Circulated 03/25/2015 09:46 AM