Home | Gaydos Law, P.C.

Contents:

• KYLE GAYDOS
• COM. V. GAYDOS, K. (MEMORANDUM)
• KYLE GAYDOS REGISTERED SEX OFFENR
• KYLE GAYDOS
• KYLE GAYDOS
• COMMONWEALTH V. GAYDOS

KYLE GAYDOS

We make no reprentatn that Kyle Gaydos's rmatn is current; mute by mute updat uld occur wh the state registri. Furthermore, Kyle Gaydos is listed on this webse bee at one pot he was listed on a state registry for offens that he or she had been charged for, but that do not mean he or she will m future crim.

KYLE MATTHEW GAYDOS Appellant::::::::: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. : FILED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 Kyle Gaydos appeals om his judgment of sentence.

COM. V. GAYDOS, K. (MEMORANDUM)

Gaydos plead guilty to Corptn of Mors, Crimal Use of a Communitn Facily, and Sexual Abe of Children (Child Pornography). [Gaydos] admted that between July 18, 2018 and Augt 6, 2018, while [he] was prent Center Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, he did e var electronic vic, specifilly three Apple iPhon and an Apple iPad, to engage nversatns wh mal unr the age of eighteen (18). [Gaydos] eliced photographs for children as young as twelve (12) years old.

The vtigatn [of Gaydos] was prompted when [Gaydos] soliced an out-of-state mor who was twelve years old. [Gaydos] did have a photograph of that child on his vic.

The urt sentenced Gaydos September 2020 to an aggregate sentence of one to two days of imprisonment followed by 18½ years of probatn. The urt orred an evaluatn by the Sexual Offenr Asssment Board (“SOAB”), which remend that the urt classify Gaydos as an SVP. Before the urt was able to hold an SVP hearg, March 2021, the Adult Probatn Office alleged Gaydos vlated his probatn (“VOP”).

KYLE GAYDOS REGISTERED SEX OFFENR

At the VOP hearg, Gaydos admted to havg vlated his probatn and the urt sentenced him to rtart the prevly imposed term of probatn. Valliere] oped that [Gaydos] meets the creria for Other Specified Paraphilic Disorr (paraphilic sexual tert children and adolcent mal) that served as the impet to his offendg and that he engaged predatory behavr as leated her report.

Valliere’s profsnal opn, [Gaydos] targeted prepubcent and postpubcent boys to sexually engage wh and form a relatnship for sexual exploatn. [Gaydos] selfadmted (to the state police) his aroal to children between the ag of ten (10) to sixteen (16) years old.

KYLE GAYDOS

She found [Gaydos] to have several signifint risk factors, specifilly that his tend victims are male and were strangers, that this was not his first non-ntact sex offense, 9 his age, 10 the lack of ‘protective’ seekg experience (beg that he has never been married or an timate relatnship) and that he ntued to engage sex offendg behavr after police ntact.

[Gaydos] was diagnosed wh Autism Spectm Disorr when he was send gra. Valliere nsired the posive factors for [Gaydos].

KYLE GAYDOS

She noted that [Gaydos] selfintifi that what he was dog and stgglg wh is a problem and that this unrstandg mak him a good ndidate to be motivated to manage and participate treatment.

[Gaydos]’s prr rerd was for crimal trpass where [Gaydos] took a (neighbor) child’s unrwear om his home. 9 [Gaydos’s] age was 24 at the age of his offense and age 27 at the time of the evaluatn. Valliere found that [Gaydos]’s behavr met the fn of predatory behavr.

COMMONWEALTH V. GAYDOS

Valliere -3- J-S18024-22 stood firm wh her opn that based on the statutory fn, [Gaydos] met the qualifitns to be a signated a[n SVP]. The urt found the Commonwealth had prented clear and nvcg evince to support the SVP signatn and issued an orr signatg Gaydos an SVP. Gaydos appealed, 3 and rais the followg: Did the lower urt err termg [Gaydos] to be a Sexually Vlent Predator where the Commonwealth failed to prove by clear and nvcg evince that he has a mental abnormaly or personaly disorr that mak him likely to engage predatory sexually vlent offens, as their expert never said that there is a high likelihood of sexual recidivism, only said that his paraphilic disorr is “related to a risk of reoffense”?

Gaydos’s Br.

At 4 Gaydos argu that “the statute requir clear and nvcg evince that, owg to their mental abnormaly, offenrs will be likely to reoffend: but no ttimony was offered to support such a ncln about [Gaydos]; Doctor Valliere simply never said that he would be likely to reoffend. Acrdg to Gaydos, Dr. Valliere ttified that she “n’t predict [Gaydos’s] likelihood to reoffend.

Valliere ttified Gaydos’s paraphilic disorr is “related to reoffense, ” Gaydos argu that she did not specify how highly the ____________________________________________ Although Gaydos’s notice of appeal stat that he appeals om the orr signatg him as a Sexually Vlent Predator, which the urt issued after Gaydos’s sentencg, the judgment of sentence was not fal until the SVP termatn was renred.