J.S43042/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : PAUL ANTHONY MASON, : : Appellant : No. 3009 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 27, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-48-CR-0000805-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Appellant, Paul Anthony Mason, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to indecent assault1 and corruption of minors.2 Appellant challenges his designation by the trial court as a sexually violent predator ( Act3

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1).

18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1).

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41 (effective Dec. 20, 2012).

J. S43042/14 We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court.

See Trial Ct. Op., 3/4/14, at 1- testified at the SVP hearing that Appellant met the criteria for classification as a SVP. Id. at 9. Appellant timely appealed on Monday, October 28, 2013, and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Appellant raises the following issue: Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or abuse its discretion in finding Appellant to be a sexually violent predator . . . pursuant to 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 9792 [sic4]?

Appellant suggests that he did not meet several of the statutory criteria defining a SVP. He maintains he did not abuse multiple children simultaneously, did not engage in violence or obsessive force, was not

select his victim by looking for preexisting vulnerabilities. Id. at 16.

Appellant also opines that the court failed to weigh his bipolar disorder properly.5 We hold Appellant is not entitled to relief.

We state the standard of review as follows: A challenge to a determination of SVP status requires us to view the evidence: We note that 42 Pa.C.S. § 9792 expired on December 20, 2012, prior to

to his SVP hearing; we decline to find waiver, however.

-2- J. S43042/14

In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts at issue.

is rendered to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, is itself evidence.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an SVP designation requires the reviewing court to accept the undiminished record of the case in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The reviewing court consideration of its admissibility. A successful sufficiency challenge can lead to an outright grant of relief such as a reversal of the SVP designation, whereas a challenge to th an evidentiary question which, if successful, can lead to a new SVP hearing.

As a general rule, the standard of review of a determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.

Our task in either scenario is one of review, not one of reweighing or assessing the evidence in the first instance.

Commonwealth v. Prendes, ___ A.3d ___, 2014 WL 3586262, at *14-*15 (Pa. Super. July 22, 2014) (citations and punctuation omitted).

-3- J. S43042/14

a statute that expired prior to his SVP hearing. Because SORNA is substantially identical to the expired statute and the trial court applied SORNA, we decline to find waiver.

- reasoned decision by the Honorable Anthony S. Beltrami, we affirm based on See Trial Ct. Op. at 2-18 (rendering extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law; holding, inter alia, (1) each statutory

inter alia, cruelty, is not SVP factor; (3) record established Appellant selected victim based on

findings and we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of sentence. See Prendes, ___ A.3d at ___, 2014 WL 3586262, at *14-*15.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary Date: 9/24/2014

-4-