Criminal – Sexually violent predator recommitted to Commonwealth’s custody

Where the defendant’s personality disorder and behavior while incarcerated established that he remained a sexually violent predator who was in need of inpatient treatment, he was recommitted to the custody of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for inpatient treatment.

Background                              

Frank Paul Ferrara appeals the circuit court’s judgment finding that he remained a sexually violent predator under Code § 37.2-910 and recommitting him to the custody of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for inpatient treatment at the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation.

Analysis

The record here supports the court’s finding that Ferrara remained a sexually violent predator. Both Drs. Sjolinder and Brown concluded that Ferrara’s personality disorder and behavior while incarcerated established that he remained a sexually violent predator, who was in need of inpatient treatment.

Dr. Sjolinder concluded that Ferrara’s personality disorder was a driving force for his sexually violent history and made him likely to commit sexually violent offenses. Dr. Brown explained that Ferrara continued to display exhibitionistic behaviors, which indicated deviant sexual interests and a risk of reoffending. Those conclusions were supported by Ferrara’s long history of flouting rules by engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior.

Ferrara resists this conclusion, arguing that the experts’ conclusions were unreliable, speculative and based upon unfair accusations by VCBR staff. This court disagrees. “It is well established that the trier of fact ascertains a witness'[s] credibility, determines the weight to be given to their testimony, and has discretion to accept or reject any of the witness'[s] testimony.”

Here, the experts were licensed clinical psychologists, qualified to opine on the diagnosis, treatment and risk assessment of sex offenders. In a criminal proceeding, Ferrara entered a no contest plea to indecent exposure which occurred during the time he was awaiting another yearly review. Dr. Sjolinder specifically noted that Ferrara focused on relitigating his criminal matters to the detriment of his treatment.

Dr. Brown believed that the conviction was an indication that Ferrara “did not meet the objective of demonstrating that his sexual urges were under control.” The court acted within its discretion by considering the record as a whole, including both expert reports and the criminal conviction, and concluding that Ferrara remained a sexually violent predator.

But even if portions of the expert opinions were to be deemed speculative, Ferrara’s counsel, to his credit, acknowledges that Ferrara’s latest conviction for indecent exposure while in custody of the VCBR, alone, could constitute a sufficient factual basis to support the court’s judgment given the applicable deferential standard of review.

Affirmed.

Ferrara v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1203-25-4, April 14, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (O’Brien). From the Circuit Court of Fauquier County (Plowman). Peter Thos. Hansen (Peter Thos. Hansen, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Amanda L. Lavin, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Theophani K. Stamos, Deputy Attorney General; Erin D. Whealton, Senior Assistant Attorney General/Chief, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-145. 6 pp

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-145
Virginia Lawyers Weekly