Legal Case

Com. v. Serrani, L.

Com.

Court

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided

June 26, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Importance

45%

Significant

Case Summary

J-S20035-25 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LEONARD SERRANI : : Appellant : No.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 resolv

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

June 26, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Court Type

federal

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Significant
Score45%
Citations
0

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJun 27, 2025
UpdatedJun 27, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJune 26, 2025
Date DecidedJune 26, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.5

Legal Classification

JurisdictionSA
Court Type
federal
Judicial Panel
Bender
Opinion Author
Bender