J-S20035-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LEONARD SERRANI : : Appellant : No. 1652 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001032-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LEONARD SERRANI : : Appellant : No. 1653 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001033-2023
BEFORE: OLSON, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: JUNE 26, 2025
Appellant, Leonard Serrani, appeals from the aggregate judgment of
sentence of 10 years’ probation, imposed after he pled nolo contendere to
nine counts of indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1), charged across two
separate cases. On appeal, Appellant solely challenges the sufficiency and
weight of the evidence to support the court’s decision to designate him as a
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). After careful review, we affirm. J-S20035-25
Briefly, Appellant’s convictions stemmed from evidence that he used
his business for waxing services … to facilitate his deviate sexual desires by going beyond the normal practices of his business, which included waxing … a client’s vaginal and anal area[s]. The victims reported [that] Appellant touched their clitoris, massaged their breasts, [and] inserted a tongue depressor or finger into [their] vagina[s].
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 12/18/24, at 3.
After Appellant pled nolo contendere to nine counts of indecent assault,
he was sentenced on January 5, 2024, to the term of probation stated supra.
After an assessment by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB), an
SVP hearing was held on October 4, 2024. On October 8, 2024, the court
issued an order deeming Appellant to be an SVP. On November 7, 2024,
Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each of his two underlying cases.1 ____________________________________________
1 We note three issues regarding Appellant’s notices of appeal. First, both notices of appeal incorrectly state that the appeal is from the order deeming Appellant to be an SVP, rather than from his judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 558, 561 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that when a defendant waives a pre-sentence SVP determination, his judgment of sentence is not final until the SVP determination is rendered); Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2009) (noting that the imposition of SVP status is a component of a judgment of sentence, even though the ultimate collateral consequences are non-punitive). We have corrected the caption accordingly. See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc) (correcting caption when an appellant misstates from where the appeal lies).
Second, although Appellant’s November 7, 2024 appeals from his January 5, 2024 judgments of sentence appear to be facially untimely, Appellant’s judgments of sentence did not become final, for purposes of appeal, until the SVP determination was rendered on October 8, 2024. See Schrader, 141 A.3d at 561-63. Because Appellant filed his appeals within thirty days of the orders determining his SVP status, his appeals are timely. (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2- J-S20035-25
The trial court thereafter ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. After granting Appellant
an extension of time to file his concise statement, Appellant did so on
December 9, 2024.2 The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on December
18, 2024.
____________________________________________
Third, because Appellant’s November 7, 2024 notices of appeal listed both docket numbers of his underlying cases, they did not comply with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requiring appellants to file separate notices of appeal when single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket). In light of Commonwealth v. Young, 280 A.3d 1049, 1057 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that, when there is a Walker defect in an appeal to which Pa.R.A.P. 902 applies, the court will permit the appellant to correct the defect, unless good cause is shown by the opposing party), this Court directed Appellant to file amended notices of appeal that complied with Walker. Appellant filed those amended notices of appeal, and we then consolidated his two appeals sua sponte.
2 On November 25, 2024, the court issued an order giving Appellant an extension of 10 days to file his concise statement, making it due on December 5, 2024. Thus, Appellant’s statement, filed on December 9, 2024, was untimely. However, the court addressed Appellant’s issues in its Rule 1925(a) opinion; thus, we decline to remand under Rule 1925(c)(3). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (“If an appellant represented by counsel in a criminal case was ordered to file and serve a Statement and either failed to do so, or untimely filed or served a Statement, such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, and the trial court did not file an opinion, the appellate court may remand for appointment of new counsel, the filing or service of a Statement nunc pro tunc, and the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (concluding that where an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement has been filed, “this Court may decide the appeal on the merits if the trial court had adequate opportunity to prepare an opinion addressing the issues being raised on appeal”).
-3- J-S20035-25
Herein, Appellant states two issues for our review, which we reorder for
ease of disposition:
1. Whether the trial court erred and/or committed an abuse of discretion finding [that Appellant] is a[n] … []SVP[] because the weight of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at the SVP hearing [was] contrary to the court’s finding [that Appellant] is a[n] … []SVP[?]
2. Whether the trial court erred in determining [Appellant is] a[n] … []SVP[], where the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Appellant] is a[n] … []SVP[]?
Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
First, we address Appellant’s brief claim that the court’s designating him
as an SVP was contrary to the weight of the evidence presented at the SVP
hearing. See id. at 20-21.3 This Court has found that a challenge to the
weight of the evidence to sustain an SVP determination is waived where the
appellant does not “advance[] the issue in the court below, thereby affording
the trial court the opportunity to rule on it.” Commonwealth v. Ratushny,
17 A.3d 1269, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2011). The Ratushny panel “discern[ed] no
basis on which to distinguish our standard of review on weight claims, whether
challenging the weight of the evidence to support a guilty verdict or a trial
court’s SVP determination.” Id. Thus, we held that
3 Although Appellant states this claim as a separate issue in his Statement of
Questions Presented, he does not delineate it with any heading “in distinctive type or distinctively displayed” in the Argument section of his brief. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). We chastise Appellant for not complying with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-4- J-S20035-25
a defendant must put the issue before the trial court in the first instance because:
[I]t is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment based on a cold record for that of the trial court. The weight to be accorded conflicting evidence is exclusively for the fact finder, whose findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the record.
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 259 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(citation omitted)). Because Ratushny had not raised any challenge to the
weight of the evidence to support his SVP designation before the trial court,
we deemed that issue waived. Id.
The same is true here. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motion
challenging the weight of the evidence to sustain his designation as an SVP,
and he does not identify where in the record that he preserved this issue
before the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c) (directing that, “[w]here under
the applicable law an issue is not reviewable on appeal unless raised or
preserved below, the statement of the case shall also specify: … [s]uch
pertinent quotations of specific portions of the record, or summary thereof,
with specific reference to the places in the record where the matter appears
(e.g. ruling or exception thereto, etc.) as will show that the question was
timely and properly raised below so as to preserve the question on appeal”).
The fact that Appellant raised his weight claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement,
and the court addressed it in its opinion, is inadequate to preserve it for our
review. See Ratushny, 17 A.3d at 1272 (“Nor does the fact [that Ratushny]
raised the issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement and the trial court addressed it
-5- J-S20035-25
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion preserve the issue for appeal.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Appellant’s weight claim is waived.4
Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the
court’s decision to designate Appellant as an SVP. We begin by noting that,
[i]n order to affirm an SVP designation, we, as a reviewing court, must be able to conclude that the fact-finder found clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a[n SVP]. As with any sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view all evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. We will reverse a trial court’s determination of SVP status only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence that each element of the statute has been satisfied.
Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation
omitted).
In assessing Appellant’s issue, we have reviewed his arguments, the
record, and the applicable case law.5 We have also considered the well-
reasoned analysis set forth by the Honorable James P. Goodman of the Court ____________________________________________
4 We would also deem Appellant’s weight claim waived based on his failure to
meaningfully develop it on appeal. Appellant provides only five sentences in support of this issue, most of which discuss the legal precepts applicable to a weight challenge. He only baldly states, at the end of his argument and without any supporting discussion, that “the evidence [was] so lacking in substance and believability that the [c]ourt’s [o]rder classifying [Appellant] as an SVP amounts to an abuse of discretion and/or a miscarriage of justice as to warrant a reversal of the [c]ourt’s decision.” Appellant’s Brief at 20. This cursory and legally undeveloped argument is insufficient to allow us to meaningfully review Appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence claim. Thus, we would deem it waived on this basis, as well.
5 We note that, although the Commonwealth filed a brief in this case, it merely
states that it is relying on the trial court’s opinion. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 2.
-6- J-S20035-25
of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County. See TCO at 1-5. We conclude that
Judge Goodman’s thoughtful assessment adequately addresses the
arguments raised by Appellant, and demonstrates that the evidence was
sufficient to support Appellant’s SVP designation. Accordingly, we adopt Judge
Goodman’s decision as our own in affirming Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 06/26/2025
-7- 06/05/2025 10:04 Circulated 08/0502025 10.04 AM
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY.CRIMINAL COUNTY—CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1032-2023 1033-2023 1033-2023 vs. is - " LEONARD SERRANI, Defendant Defendant 1652 MDA 2024 1653 1653 MDA 2024 2024 et « - Michael A. A. O'Pake, Esquire -— for the Commonwealth Robert J.J. Kirwan, II, IH, Esquire Esquire -— for the Defendant
OPINION OF COURT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. PA.R.A.P, 1925
GOODMAN, JJ.
Appellant, Leonard Serrani, has filed a a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal Appeal that raises two issues. Appellant pled pled no contest in these two criminal cases to nine
counts of indecent assault without consent.' Afterwards, he was assessed by the Sexual
Offenders Assessment Board ("SOAB") Assessment Board ("S0AB") to to determine whether whether he he was aaSexually Violent
Predator Predator (" SVP"). A (SVP"). A hearing hearing was held on October 4, 2024, in which both sides presented experts
to support their positions. Ultimately, Ultimately, this Court concluded that Appellant be classified as an
SVP, SVP, as proposed by the S0AB. as proposed SOAB.
Appellant Appellant first asserts that this Court erred in classifying him as an SVP because the
evidence. To find Commonwealth failed to establish this classification by clear and convincing evidence.
an individual should be classified as SVP, that individual must first be convicted of aasexually
violent violent offense listed in offense listed in 42 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. §$9799.14 9799.14. 2 The individual must The individual must then be determined then be determined to to suffer suffer
18 Pa. C.S. §$3126(1). 18P.CS. 3126(a)(1). There is no dispute that Appellant's convictions require an There 2 An SVP Svp assessment. assessment from aamental abnormality or personality mental abnormality personality disorder such such that they they are highly highly likely likely to engage in in
sexually violent predatory sexually offenses. 42 Pa. violent offenses. Pa. C.S. C.S. §$979912. 9799.12. "Predatory" Predatory" is defined as an "act "act
directed at aastranger stranger or at a a person with whom a a relationship has been initiated, established,
promoted, in whole or in part, maintained or promoted, part, in order to facilitate or support victimization." Id Id.
After conviction but prior prior to sentencing, SOAB assesses the individual to determine whether sentencing, the S0AB
appropriate, analyzing SVP classification is appropriate, analyzing the the factors factors found found in 42 Pa. Pa. C.S. §$9799.24. 9799.24.
After the S0AB SOAB completes completes its assessment, the trial court must determine SVP status
under the "clear and convicting convicting evidence" standard. This standard is described as an
"intermediate" intermediate" test that is evidence "so clear, direct, weighty, is defined as evidence weighty, and convincing as to to
enable [the enable [the trier of fact] to come to a a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the
precise facts [in] precise facts [in] issue." Commonwealth v. • Meals, 590 Pa. Pa. 110, 120-21,912 120-21, 912 A.2d A.24 213, 219 213,219
citing Commonwealth v. (2006), citing v. Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101, 11, 838 A.2d 710 710 (2003). (2003). Once the trial
court has made aadetermination on the matter, the appellate courts must construe the evidence in
the light light most most favorable favorable to to the prevailing party. the prevailing party. Id. Id, at at 126, 126, 223.
The evidence presented presented by the Commonwealth was certainly sufficient to meet its burden
convincing standard. of the clear and convincing standard. Paula B. Brust, MA, LPC, NCC, testified as the member of
the S0AB SORB who evaluated Appellant Appellant in these cases. Her report was submitted as an exhibit
objection. She did not have the opportunity without objection. opportunity to speak to Appellant, as he refused, but she
reviewed the the case file investigation reports file and investigation reports from from the the victims. victims. Upon Upon reviewing reviewing this
information, she concluded that Appellant met the full criteria for other specified paraphilic
disorder. This disorder is characterized by intense sexual arousal lasting six months or longer in
which the person person has engaged engaged in sexual contact of nonconsenting persons. persons. Ms. Ms. Brust testified
that, as these incidents occurred over aaspan span of three years between 2020 and 2023, his inability
2 to manage manage himself during during this long long period period of time shows the strength of the paraphilic disorder.
Therefore, Appellant Appellant met the first criteria for reaching reaching the SVP status by by suffering suffering from aamental
abnormality. Significantly, Appellant's Appellant's expert, expert, Frank M. M. Dattilio, Ph.D., also made this
conclusion. conclusion.
Ms. Brust also concluded that Appellant engaged in predatory predatory behavior. behavior. Ms. Brust based
this conclusion upon Appellant showing upon Appellant showing planning planning and intent by selecting numerous victims that
came came into his business waxing services and then business for waxing then groomed groomed them over a a period of time and
touched them in aanon-consenting non-consenting manner, manner, under the guise of his business. Significantly, he used
his business his business to to facilitate his deviate facilitate his deviate sexual desires by sexual desires by going beyond the going beyond the normal normal practices of his practices of his
business, which included waxing waxing the areas of aaclient's vaginal vaginal and anal area. The victims
reported Appellant touched their reported Appellant clitoris, massaged their clitoris, massaged their breasts, inserted inserted aatongue tongue depressor or
finger finger into the vagina. At the vagina. At times, he he would would pressure pressure the the victim victim into into these these acts, acts, such such as massages massages
that would require removing would require clothing and exposing removing clothing exposing breasts. breasts. His His waxing waxing business business already
required required clients to be partially partially undressed and expecting their private private areas to be touched in aa
certain way, and Appellant Appellant took advantage of having easily accessible victims that he could take
advantage through his advantage of through his professional professional relationship. relationship. Ms. Ms. Brust, Brust, by by finding finding Appellant met both both
criteria, concluded that it was her opinion opinion by aareasonable degree of professional professional certainty
Appellant Appellant should be classified as SVP. Based upon Ms. Brust's testimony, the Commonwealth
met its met its burden by clear burden by clear and and convincing convincing evidence evidence that that Appellant Appellant should be classified should be classified as SVP. as SVP.
Appellant's second issue Appellant's second on appeal issue on appeal is is that that this this Court Court abused abused its discretion in its discretion in determining determining
he should be classified as an SVP because it is against the weight weight of the evidence. Appellate
review of a review of aweight of the weight of the evidence claim is evidence claim is limited Limited to to whether whether the trial judge's the trial judge's discretion discretion was was
properly exercised. Commonwealth properly exercised. Commonwealth v. • Ratushny, Ratushny, 17 17 A.3d A.3d 1269, 1269, 1272 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). 1272 (Pa. 2011). The
3 3 weight to be weight be accorded accorded conflicting evidence is conflicting evidence is exclusively exclusively for for the fact finder, the fact and those finder, and those findings findings
will not be disrupted appeal if supported disrupted on appeal by the record. Id. supported by Id
Appellant specify why Appellant does not specify why he believes the sVP SVP determination went against against the
weight evidence. However, weight of the evidence. However, this certainly found this Court certainly found Ms. Ms. Brust's testimony more Brust's testimony more credible
than Appellant's expert. than Appellant's expert. Appellant's expert, Dr. Appellant's expert, Dattilio, also Dr. Dattilio, also concluded that Appellant concluded that Appellant must must be be
found to have have aamental abnormality, abnormality, specifically, specifically, the specified paraphilic the specified paraphilic disorder. This This
conclusion was was based upon upon the convictions themselves, and Dr. Dr Dattilio testified that he had had no
choice choice but to meet but to that conclusion meet that conclusion based upon the based upon the plea plea agreement. However, Dr. agreement. However, Dr. Dattilio Dattilio did did not not
conclude that conclude that Appellant engaged in Appellant engaged in predatory predatory behavior. behavior. He He testified, based upon testified, based upon his interviews his interviews
with Appellant Appellant is more of aacompulsive Appellant and some of the individuals close to him, that Appellant compulsive
personality personality and aaperfectionist. perfectionist. Dr. Dr. Dattilio testified that it was his belief that it was Appellant's
perfectionism that caused him to enter the vaginal perfectionism vaginal area of these victims on occasion because of
his determination his determination to be as to be as thorough thorough in his waxing in his waxing as as possible and not possible and not for sexual arousal for sexual arousal.
The Court found this reasoning reasoning to be incredible and looking looking at the matter in aavacuum.
Not only only is it unbelievable to think that penetration penetration of a a vagina vagina happened because of
"perfectionism," there are numerous other aspects "perfectionism," aspects of Appellant's Appellant's behavior that were criminal and
predatory in predatory in nature nature other other than penetration. Dr. than penetration. Dr. Dattilio Dattilio did did not address any not address any of of the the victim's victim's other other
statements, statements, such such as the massaging, massaging, the touching of breasts, the touching breasts, showing showing aawaxing waxing video in which he
had had an an erection, and and making inappropriate, sexually making inappropriate, sexually suggestive suggestive comments. comments. These numerous other
instances could not be labeled as misguided misguided "perfectionism." "perfectionism." Dr. Dattilio picked picked one single act,
penetration, to claim it was aamatter of misguided the accusation of penetration, misguided perfectionism, and failed to
address any any of the other myriad myriad of predatory predatory behaviors of Appellant. Appellant. For these reasons, this
Court concluded Ms. Brust testified more credibly. credibly
4 Furthermore, Ms. Ms. Brust aptly assessed Appellant's behaviors against against the factors found in
42 Pa. C.S. §89979,24(b), 42Pa.CS, 9979.24(b). Several of the the factors contributed to to her opinion, including her opinion, including the the
multitude of multitude of victims, victims, which indicates a which indicates greater sexual a greater sexual deviancy, and using deviancy, and using his business to his business
facilitate his facilitate his victimization victimization of of his clients. All his clients, All of of his his victims victims were adults and were adults and able able to to consent, consent, but bu
none of none of them them did. did. He groomed his He groomed clients by his clients by offering offering them them additional services when additional services when in in actuality actuality
his intent his intent was was to satisfy his to satisfy sexual deviancies. his sexual deviancies. Ms. Ms. Brust Brust also determined that also determined that this this is is aalifelong lifelong
disorder that may wax and wane. He is pre-disposed pre-disposed to reoffending reoffending due to his Other Specified Specified
Paraphilic Disorder. Appellant's Counsel tried to argue argue that without his waxing waxing business and
license, to victims license, his supposed access to gone and therefore, victims is gone therefore, would hypothetically be less likely would hypothetically Likely
to re-offend. to re-offend. However, However, reoffending reoffending is but one is but one factor factor. Regardless, Regardless, just just because because the waxing the waxing
business business provided virtually unlimited provided virtually potential victims, unlimited potential victims, it it does does not erase his not erase sexual deviancy his sexual deviancy and and
desire attempt to desire to attempt to reoffend.
argued at the time of the hearing Appellant's Counsel also argued hearing that the S0AB SOAB does not have
enough information to make this type of assessment by by relying potentially faulty relying on potentially police faulty police
reports and not reports and interviewing Appellant not interviewing Appellant or or his his family and close family and close friends. This is friends. This is simply simply not not
required required by the SOAB and the S0AB and Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law, and Ms. Ms. Brust Brust conducted her her assessment in an
appropriate manner. appropriate
While not all While not of the all of factors have the factors have been been met, met, they they are are not not meant to act meant to act as as a achecklist checklist in in
which each which each factor weighs, either factor weighs, either for for or or against, against, an an SVP SVP determination. determination. Meals, 590 Pa. Meals, 590 at 126, Pa. at 126,
912 A.2d at 222. 912A.2d 222. Based upon the factors factors that are are met, met, the the severity severity of Appellant's Appellant's actions actions with
nine victims over aaperiod of almost three years, this Court determined that the weight weight of the
evidence favored the the Commonwealth, and and that the Commonwealth Commonwealth met met their their burden by by clear and
convincing evidence convincing evidence that Appellant should that Appellant should be classified classified as an SVP as an SVP.
5 5