Court Opinion

ID: 9393106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 14:10:57.320586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.911129
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED

              VICTOR MATTHEW THOMPSON
                                                                                MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 1434-22-2                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                    MAY 9, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                             FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY
                                             Herbert M. Hewitt, Judge

                               (James Joseph Ilijevich, on brief), for appellant.

                               (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Erin Dugan Whealton, Senior
                               Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Victor Matthew Thompson appeals a civil commitment order entered under Virginia’s

              Sexually Violent Predators Act. Code §§ 37.2-900 through -921. On appeal, Thompson argues that

              the evidence was insufficient to prove that he remains a sexually violent predator and that he did not

              meet the criteria for conditional release. After examining the briefs and record in this case and

              because the record supports the trial court’s determination that Thompson remains a sexually violent

              predator ineligible for conditional release, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is

              unnecessary because the appeal is “wholly without merit” and we affirm. Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a);

              Rule 5A:27(a).

                                                         BACKGROUND

                     In February 2019, Thompson was committed to the Virginia Center for Behavioral

              Rehabilitation for treatment as a sexually violent predator, stemming from his conviction for

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
forcible sodomy in 2001. On August 23, 2022, the trial court conducted a review hearing to

determine whether Thompson remained a sexually violent predator and, if so, whether he could be

conditionally released. The trial court reviewed reports and heard testimony from Dr. Demetria

Brown and Dr. Craig S. King at this hearing. Both doctors found that although Thompson was

addressing his first sexually violent offense, his failure to take accountability for his second sexually

violent offense prevented him from “moving forward” in treatment. Thus, both doctors opined that

Thompson remained a sexually violent predator who was unsuitable for conditional release. By

final order, the trial court recommitted Thompson for continuing treatment, finding that he remained

a sexually violent predator who needed inpatient, secure hospitalization and finding that there was

no less restrictive alternative to institutional confinement and treatment. This appeal followed.

                                     STANDARD OF REVIEW

        When reviewing a challenge to a trial court’s sexually violent predator determination,

“we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most

favorable to . . . the prevailing party below, and will not reverse the judgment of the trial court

unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Commonwealth v. Squire, 278 Va.

746, 749 (2009). Here, the prevailing party is the Commonwealth.

                                             ANALYSIS

        Thompson argues that the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to show that he

remained a sexually violent predator and that he was ineligible for conditional release. Viewed in

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must on appeal, we find that the trial court

had sufficient evidence to find that Thompson remained a sexually violent predator who was not

eligible for conditional release.

        Sexually violent predators are individuals who have been “convicted of a sexually violent

offense” and “because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder, find[] it difficult to control

                                                  -2-
[their] predatory behavior, which makes [them] likely to engage in sexually violent acts.” Code

§ 37.2-900. Such determinations must “be based on the totality of the record, including but not

limited to expert testimony.” DeMille v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 316, 318 (2012). Review

hearings for sexually violent predators are held every year for the first five years, and every other

year thereafter. Code § 37.2-910(A). On review, the Commonwealth must show by “clear and

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

“If the court finds that the respondent remains a sexually violent predator, it shall order . . . secure

inpatient hospitalization and treatment or . . . conditional[] release[].” Code § 37.2-910(D).

        Though Thompson contends that the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that

he remained a sexually violent predator and that he did not meet the criteria for conditional release,

the undisputed evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth—supports the

trial court’s judgment. The trial court received the evaluations and testimony of two expert

witnesses, Drs. Brown and King, regarding Thompson’s sexually violent predator status. No other

evidence was offered. Although Dr. Brown more emphatically maintained that Thompson

remained a sexually violent predator not suited for conditional release, Dr. King’s opinion was

largely the same. In his evaluation, Dr. King stated that Thompson remained a sexually violent

predator and that Thompson’s inability to discuss his second violent sexual offense “need[s] to be

resolved, at least to some degree, before [he] . . . [can] be a candidate for conditional release.”

Because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Thompson remained a sexually violent predator,

unsuited for conditional release, the trial court did not err in its judgment.

                                            CONCLUSION

        For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                                Affirmed.

                                                   -3-