Court Opinion

ID: 9753807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:30:21.849617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:42.732815
License: Public Domain

*1223DISSENTING OPINION BY
LAZARUS, J.:
Our court has stated that:
The integral nature of the SVP process with sentencing is evident from § 9795.4(e)(4)’s requirement that the assessment report by the Board expert “be provided to the agency preparing the presentence investigation.” Thus, the pre-sentence investigator is given the report for consideration by the investigator in writing his or her own report and recommendation for ' sentencing, and we have held the Board report may be utilized by the sentencing court as an aid in sentencing. Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120, 182 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 780, 906 A.2d 542 (2006). The sentencing court can go so far as to consider its own SVP determination as a legal factor in imposing sentence in the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines. Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1277 (Pa.Super.2006).
Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1201 (Pa.Super.2009). Thus, while the majority concludes that an “SVP order could not possibly be a modification or rescission of the sentencing order,” Majority Memorandum, at 4, this statement is at odds with the practical reality that sentencing courts often do take a defendant’s SVP status into account when imposing sentences. It is for this reason that the statute mandates that the SOAB assessment must be ordered and completed, and the SOAB report submitted to the District Attorney, prior to sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Baird, 856 A.2d 114, 118 (Pa.Super.2004); see also 42 Pa.C.SA. § 9795.4(e)(8) (“[a]t the hearing prior to sentencing, the court shall determine whether the Commonwealth has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a sexually violent predator.”).
Moreover, the majority has cited no authority granting the trial court jurisdiction to impose the given SVP order nine months after sentencing. It is one thing to find that a defendant has waived a right; it is another to find that a court has the authority or jurisdiction to act at a given time. Today the majority leaves that critical issue unanswered which, in my opinion, invites trial courts to delay the SVP determination in contravention of the language and spirit of the statute.1 Thus, I dissent.

. The majority’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Leidig, 598 Pa. 211, 956 A.2d 399 (2008), also leaves the jurisdictional question unanswered. In Leidig, not only did the SOAB report con-elude that the defendant was not an SVP, but the report was issued prior to defendant being sentenced. Id. at 401.