Com. v. Zeigafuse, D.
872 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Appellant David L. Zeigafuse pled nolo contendere to indecent assault (victim under 13), corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, and indecent exposure based on allegations that he sexually abused his daughter from ~2009–2013.
- A Walmart video showed Appellant taking his eight‑year‑old daughter into a men’s restroom for ~15 minutes; the child later disclosed sexual contact and exposure.
- The trial court ordered a SORNA Board assessment to determine sexually violent predator (SVP) status and a presentence investigation (PSI).
- Paula Brust, a Board member and expert, reviewed reports (police, victim interviews, prior psychiatric/psychological evaluations) but did not interview Appellant; she diagnosed pedophilic disorder and opined he is predatory, likely to reoffend, and meets SVP criteria.
- The court found the opinion credible, designated Appellant an SVP, imposed consecutive prison terms (12–84 months on three counts) plus probation, denied post‑sentence relief, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Zeigafuse's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to classify Appellant as an SVP under SORNA | Expert Brust’s assessment (relying on reports and interviews) established a mental abnormality/pedophilic disorder, predatory conduct, and risk to reoffend — clear and convincing evidence supports SVP finding | Brust’s testimony did not meet the clear and convincing standard; her opinion was insufficient (and she did not personally evaluate Appellant) | Court affirmed SVP designation: expert testimony and documentary evidence sufficed under clear and convincing standard; trial court free to credit Brust’s opinion |
| Whether the sentence was excessive / court failed to consider §9721(b) factors | Sentencing court considered PSI, expert reports, victim impact, and expressly balanced rehabilitative needs against public protection; sentences within statutory limits and not manifestly excessive | Sentences (max seven times minimum on several counts) are excessive and court failed to adequately consider protection of public, gravity, and rehabilitation | Court affirmed sentence: no abuse of discretion; record shows court considered relevant factors and sentencing was within statutory bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for SVP designation)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (SORNA assessment factors are non‑exclusive; not a checklist)
- Commonwealth v. Conklin, 897 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2006) (Commonwealth need not produce a clinical diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist to prove mental abnormality for SVP)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sentencing court must consider §9721(b) factors)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (presumption that trial court considered PSI and relevant information when imposing sentence)