Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 25, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000987-2010, CP-51-CR-0000988-2010, CP-51-CR-0000997-2010.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, OLSON AND WECHT, JJ.
Appellant, Rubin Lee Martin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 25, 2013, as made final by the denial of Appellant's post-sentence motion on February 28, 2013. We affirm.
The trial court has ably summarized the underlying facts of this case.
On May 30, 2012, [Appellant] entered a nolo contendere plea on three transcripts: CP-51-CR-0000987-2010; CP-51-CR-0000988-2010; and CP-51-CR-0000997-2010. On each transcript, [Appellant pleaded] nolo contendere to one count of [unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of a child, and indecent assault of a child. . . . The [trial] court imposed the sentence negotiated by the parties on transcripts ending 0000988-2010 and 0000997-2010. The court deferred sentencing on the transcript ending 0000987-2010 and ordered [Appellant] to be assessed by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board ("the Board"). . . .
A hearing was held on January 25, 2013, pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.A.] § 9799.24 to determine if [Appellant] should be classified as a sexually violent predator ("SVP"). On that date, the Commonwealth presented the August 24, 2012 expert report of Barry Zakireh, Ph.D. [Within Dr. Zakireh's expert report, Dr. Zakireh] concluded that [Appellant] met the statutory criteria [for being an] SVP. . . . [Appellant] and the Commonwealth stipulated to Dr. Zakireh's report, though [Appellant] did not stipulate to the conclusions therein. . . .
Upon considering Dr. Zakireh's report and hearing brief argument, the [trial] court found [Appellant] to be an SVP within the meaning of the statute and imposed the parties' negotiated sentence on the remaining transcript. [Specifically, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of seven years of probation, with the sentence to run concurrent to the sentences the trial court had already imposed].
Trial Court Opinion, 6/11/13, at 1-2.
After the trial court denied Appellant's timely post-sentence motion, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court and the trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement lists the following claims:
1. Did the [trial court] err in finding that [Appellant] was a violent sexual offender and was the evidence insufficient to support such a finding? Was there no evidence of a mental abnormality? Were the standards set forth in the statute not met?
2. Did the report of the psychologist err in that it had factual errors, including the fact that one of the alleged victims had been made pregnant by [Appellant], when in fact it turned out it had been fabricated by the victim and there ...