Com. v. Stubbs, D.
Com. v. Stubbs, D. No. 3764 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Darnell Stubbs was convicted by a jury of IDSI by forcible compulsion, unlawful restraint, sexual assault, and simple assault; sentenced to 5–12 years’ imprisonment plus seven years of sex-offender probation.
- The court deferred sentencing pending a Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) evaluation to determine whether Stubbs met the statutory definition of a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP).
- The SOAB report (prepared by Dr. Barry Zakireh) relied on Stubbs’ juvenile adjudication for sexual/assaultive conduct, multiple adolescent residential placements, and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, concluding a high risk of reoffense.
- Stubbs challenged the SVP finding on appeal, arguing Dr. Zakireh relied on erroneous and incomplete information (e.g., juvenile records and residential-program records were not reviewed).
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court considered whether the Rule 1925(b) concise statement adequately identified the alleged error regarding the SOAB report.
- The court held Stubbs’ Rule 1925(b) statement was vague and failed to specify which information was erroneous, thus waiving the argument; the court also observed the record supported the SVP classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved SVP status by clear and convincing evidence | Commonwealth: SOAB report and underlying facts support SVP classification | Stubbs: Dr. Zakireh relied on erroneous/incomplete information (juvenile records, program records, background) so SVP finding unsupported | Court: Issue waived for appeal because Stubbs’ Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague; court also found record supports SVP classification |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (issues not raised in a concise statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) requirement explained; failure to comply results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 955 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concise statement must specifically identify issues for the trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Rule 1925 aids trial judges in focusing issues for appellate review)
- In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concise statement must properly specify the error to be addressed on appeal)