Com. v. Roberts, J. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S58037-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAN-DAVID ROBERTS Appellant No. 434 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 19, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001970-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2015 Appellant, Jan-David Roberts, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, following his negotiated guilty plea to indecent assault against a person under sixteen (16) years of age, and corruption of minors.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Appellant sexually abused his stepdaughter (“Victim”) from approximately 2001 until 2005, when she was seven (7) to eleven (11) years old. Victim reported the abuse when she was sixteen (16) years old, and the Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant on June 26, 2012, with ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(8) and 6301(a), respectively. _____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S58037-15 corruptions of minors, unlawful contact with minor, and indecent assault of a person less than thirteen (13) years of age. On December 11, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to indecent assault against a person under sixteen (16) years of age, and corruption of minors. The trial court deferred sentencing pending a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) hearing. On May 19, 2014, the trial court held a SVP hearing, determined Appellant was a SVP, and ordered Appellant to be a lifetime registrant under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).2 Following the SVP hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-four (24) months of intermediate punishment for the indecent assault offense, and a consecutive sixty (60) months of probation for the corruption of minors offense. On May 29, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court; however, he withdrew the appeal on June 13, 2014. Appellant then filed a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc on July 23, 2014, which the trial court denied on September 8, 2014. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 17, 2014; however this Court quashed Appellant’s appeal because he did not have the trial court’s permission to file his July 23, 2014 post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc. On December 2, 2014, Appellant timely filed a petition pursuant to the ____________________________________________ 2 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. -2- J-S58037-15 Post-Conviction Relief Act,3 asking the trial court to reinstate his postsentence and direct appeal rights. The trial court granted Appellant’s petition on January 8, 2015, and reinstated Appellant’s post-sentence and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On January 15, 2015, Appellant filed a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on February 4, 2015. On March 5, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. On March 10, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on March 11, 2015. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S POST-SENTENCE MOTION WHERE HIS SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR DESIGNATION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SHOCK ONE’S SENSE OF JUSTICE WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT APPELLANT POSSESSES A MENTAL ABNORMALITY, AND THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED FACTORS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE, APPELLANT’S PRIOR OFFENSE HISTORY, AND APPELLANT’S RISK OF REOFFENDING? (Appellant’s Brief at 4). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Scott A. Evans, we conclude Appellant’s issue on appeal merits no relief. ____________________________________________ 3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. -3- The trial J-S58037-15 court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 28, 2015, at 2-8) (finding: Dr. Stein, expert in area of sexual offender assessment, completed evaluation of Appellant and testified on behalf of Commonwealth at SVP hearing; Dr. Stein testified Victim was seven (7) years old when abuse began and Appellant continued sexual abuse of Victim for at least four (4) years; Dr. Stein stated Victim’s age and length of abuse were sufficient evidence to establish Appellant suffers from mental abnormality of pedophilia, an incurable condition that involves sustained sexual interest in child; Dr. Stein also testified that Appellant exhibited predatory behavior by repeatedly touching Victim while she was sleeping or half asleep; Dr. Stein indicated he found Appellant’s relationship with Victim as her stepfather, Appellant’s prior conviction involving sexual incident in 2008, Appellant’s history of violating probation and parole, and Appellant’s history of selling and using marijuana relevant to SVP determination; Dr. Stein acknowledged Appellant’s participation in sex offender programming, but noted there was no information available regarding Appellant’s progress; Dr. Stein concluded there was sufficient evidence to classify Appellant as SVP based on facts of case and consideration of statutory factors; therefore, court’s determination that Appellant is SVP was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm of the basis of the trial court’s opinion. -4- J-S58037-15 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/15/2015 -5- Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM Circulated 09/23/2015 12:12 PM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.