Submitted November 17, 2014.
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of December 9, 2013. In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County. Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0001252-2013. Before SULLIVAN, J.
Steven P. Pascrello, Altoona, for appellant.
Jackie A. Bernard, Assistant District Attorney, Hollidaysburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA and OLSON, JJ. OPINION BY OLSON, J.
Appellant, Kyla A. Hollingshead, appeals from the judgment of sentenced entered on December 9, 2013, as made final by the order entered on July 30, 2014 which designated her a sexually violent predator (" SVP" ). We affirm.
The factual background of this case is as follows. In August 2010, Appellant was hired by Altoona Area High School to serve as an assistant coach of the girls' soccer team. In October 2010, Appellant
began a romantic relationship with a 15-year-old player on the team. In October 2012, Appellant began a romantic relationship with a 16-year-old player on the team. Eventually, both relationships led to sexual contact between Appellant and the players.
The procedural history of this case is as follows. On June 21, 2013, Appellant was charged via criminal information with two counts of corruption of minors and one count of institutional sexual assault. On December 9, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to one count of corruption of minors and institutional sexual assault. She was immediately sentenced to 60 days to 231/2 months' imprisonment followed by 30 months' probation. The trial court also ordered tat the Sexual Offender Assessment Board (" SOAB" ) evaluate Appellant to determine if she met the criteria to be classified as an SVP.
On March 17, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a praecipe for an SVP hearing, which occurred on June 3, 2014. Corrine Scheuneman, MA, LPC, a member of the SOAB, testified on behalf of the Commonwealth and Dr. Timothy Foley testified on behalf of Appellant. After considering post-hearing briefs, the trial court designated Appellant an SVP, and issued an opinion explaining its rationale. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant presents one issue for our review:
[Did] the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by classifying ...