Clearfield County is not obligated to provide funding to a Penfield man who wanted to challenge his classification as a Sexually Violent Predator, according to a decision late last week by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The question was brought before the state appeals court by Raymond A. Mikelonis Sr., 69, who presently is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution Houtzdale for disseminating child pornography.

Mikelonis was sentenced last year by Judge Paul E. Cherry to a prison term of 15 to 40 years, followed by 17 years of probation.

The sentence also designated Mikelonis as a Sexually Violent Predator, which under Pennsylvania law, means he is likely to reoffend.

The Superior Court opinion by Judges Jack A. Panella, Maria McLaughlin and John T. Bender pointed out that Mikelonis had two prior convictions for abuse of children that occurred in 2011 and 2016.

When he was charged with his latest offenses in July 2022, he was still on parole for his 2016 charges.

He was designated as a Sexually Violent Predator in both 2011 and 2016, the Superior Court opinion stated.

On July 27, 2022, Mikelonis was again charged with crimes against children that included two counts of disseminating child pornography, two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of the criminal use of a communication facility.

In 2023, he agreed to plead to the offenses in return for a minimum prison sentence of 15 years.

The judge, prior to sentencing, sought a review of the Mikelonis case by the Pennsylvania Offenders Assessment Board, which eventually concluded that he once again “fit the criteria to be designated as an SVP.”

According to procedure, the judge was to hold a hearing on the SVP question.

On Feb. 8, 2024, Mikelonis changed attorneys and indicated he wanted funding to hire his own expert, likely a psychiatrist, so he could challenge the recommendation that he be classified as a Sexually Violent Predator.

The court denied his request.

After being sentenced, the Mikelonis defense appealed the decision denying his request for funding so he could hire his own expert to perform an SVP Assessment.

According to the defense, the law allows the accused to hire an expert to refute the recommendation of the state Sexual Assessment Board.

But, it also noted the court in precedential cases has ruled, “The Commonwealth is not obligated to pay for the services of an expert simply because a defendant requests one.”

The judge in the Mikelonis case indicated that the defendant had no specifics as to whom he would call as an expert, and it was emphasized Mikelonis had already been designated as a predator on two prior occasions.

The defense, however, persisted, pointing out Mikelonis was indigent and could not afford to secure a psychiatrist to state his case.

According to the Superior Court opinion, the judge responded, “I don’t believe he has a right to funding. … We don’t have the funding. I’m going to deny your motion for funding.”

The Superior Court opinion supported the position taken by Cherry.

“Appellant’s failure to even suggest a specific expert that he wished to perform his independent SVP evaluation results in the denial of his issue on appeal,” the appeals court opinion said.

It went on to state, “Based upon (Mikelonis’) history of being declared an SVP in both 2006 and 2011 for sexual offenses dealing with children, it is wholly unclear that any additional evaluation could credibly suggest the Appellant does not fit the definition of an SVP.”

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant an independent SVP evaluation, the Superior Court panel concluded.

Mikelonis was represented in his appeal by attorney Joseph Drew Ryan of Reynoldsville.