Opinion ID: 1058936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence in Shivaee Case

Text: Shivaee was found to be a sexually violent predator at the conclusion of a bench trial. In accordance with established principles of appellate review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below. We also accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the evidence. Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 90, 95, 531 S.E.2d 311, 314 (2000); Evaluation Research Corp. v. Alequin, 247 Va. 143, 147, 439 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1994). On appeal, Shivaee concedes that he has been convicted of and is incarcerated for a sexually violent offense. Shivaee argues there was not sufficient evidence that he suffered from a mental abnormality as defined by the SVPA and that there was no evidence he was likely to engage in sexually violent acts. A review of the evidence adduced at trial refutes his contentions. Shivaee was convicted of four sexually violent offenses against four separate victims, three girls and one boy, in less than a five-year period. Shivaee also statutorily raped and impregnated another girl and attempted to hide this information from the SORT Program, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Hunter. Shivaee continued to deny or minimize his offenses despite treatment in the SORT Program, and he never completed the SORT Program. Shivaee offended against both sexes, was not related to any of his victims, and planned the enticement and seduction of each of his victims. In light of this evidence, both experts agreed that Shivaee is a pedophile and is a risk to re-offend. Dr. Nelson stated, The diagnosis of which I can express professional certainty is that he meets criteria for pedophilia. He stated that Shivaee's behavior is indicative of a more predatory pattern of sex offender, and that Shivaee has a likelihood of having another sex offense, specifically a sexually violent offense as defined here. In summarizing his testimony regarding Shivaee's diagnosis of pedophilia and related predatory behavior, the following exchange occurred between the attorney for the Commonwealth and Dr. Nelson: Q. And, again, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty do you hold an opinion as to whether [Shivaee] has difficulty controlling that [predatory] behavior? A. Yes. Q. And what is your opinion? A. He absolutely has difficulty in my opinion. Dr. Hunter also diagnosed Shivaee as a pedophile, but opined that Shivaee is not likely to commit a new sexual offense. The experts disagreed as to the course of treatment. Dr. Nelson said Shivaee is not going to make, in my opinion, adequate progress on an outpatient basis. Look how little progress he has made in two years of being in an inpatient program thus far. Because of his diagnosis as a pedophile, and his lack of progress in the SORT Program, Dr. Nelson recommended inpatient treatment based on his belief that Shivaee is a threat to the public. Dr. Hunter stated that Shivaee is amenable to community-based [outpatient] treatment. He based this conclusion on his belief that Shivaee could control his behavior. In light of this evidence, we cannot say that the judgment of the trial court was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Shivaee did not dispute that he was incarcerated upon a conviction for a sexually violent offense. Shivaee was clearly diagnosed with the mental abnormality of pedophilia by both experts and there was clear and convincing evidence that because of this mental abnormality Shivaee finds it difficult to control his predatory behavior, which makes it likely that he will engage in sexually violent acts.