J

- S24040

- 23

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SEAN MICHAEL BLUM

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1607 MDA 2022 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal

Division at No(s): CP

- 49

- MD

- 0000500

- 2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FI LED: A UGU ST 1, 2023

Sean Blum appeals from the October 26, 2022 judgment of sentence of
6 months’ imprisonment and a $ 3 00 fine and court costs imposed after he was
found guilty of indirec t criminal contempt 1 of a Protection From Abuse (“PFA”)

order. For the following reasons, we deem the issue Appellant attempts to
raise herein to be waived and affirm his judgment of sentence. 2
The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter ar e not relevant
to our disposition and need not be reiterated here. On appeal, Appellant
purports to challenge whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).

2 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief in this matter.J

- S24040

- 23

- 2

-

evidence to sustain his conviction for indirect criminal contempt of the PFA

order

. See Appellant’s brief at 9

- 10.
Our standard of review in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence is as follows:

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence , we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable infer ences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an appellate court, we may not re

- weigh the evidence and substitute our judg ment for that of the fact

finder. Any question of doubt is for the fact

- finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Thomas , 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations
omitted), appeal denied , 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).
A court may hold a defendant in indirect criminal contempt and punish
him in accordance with the law where the police have filed charges of indirect
criminal contempt ag ainst the defendant for violating a PFA order issued
pursuant to the domestic relations code. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).

A charge of indirect criminal contempt consists of a claim that a violation of an order or decree of court occurred outside the presenc e of the court. Where a PFA order is involved, an indirect criminal contempt charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of the protective order.

. . . . To establish indirect criminal contempt, it must be shown that 1) the order was sufficiently clear to theJ

- S24040

- 23

- 3

- contemnor as to leave no doubt of the conduct prohibited; 2) the contemnor had notice of the order; 3) the act must have been one prohibited by the
or der; and 4) the intent of the contemnor in committing the act must have been wrongful.

Commonwealth v. Padilla , 885 A.2d 994, 996

- 997 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 897 A.2d
454 (Pa. 2006).

Before we address the merits of Appellant’s sufficiency challenge,
however, we must determine whether he has properly preserved it for our

review. In his Rule 1925(b) concise statement, Appellant alleged: “The

evidence introdu ce [sic] at an indirect criminal contempt hearing was
insufficient to prove [A]ppellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt.” See

“ Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) , ”

12/5/22 , at ¶ 1. T he trial court found that App ellant waived his sufficiency
claim by failing to specify the element or elements of indirect criminal
contempt that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. See trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 1/11/23 at 1. We agree with

this as sessment.

In Commonwealth v. Rivera , 238 A.3d 482 (Pa.Super. 2020) , appeal

denied , 250 A.3d 1158 (Pa. 2021), a panel of this Court held that:

[w]e have repeatedly held that [i]n order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant ’ s [Rule] 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient. ... Therefore, when an appellant ’ sJ

- S24040

- 23

- 4

- 1925(b) statement fails to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient[,] ... the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal.

Id. at 496 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we concur that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement fails to

articulate the element s o f indirect criminal contempt of a PFA order for which

he believes the evidence had been insufficient. Accordingly, we agree with

the trial court that Appellant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence

. 3
Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8 /0 1 /2023

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

3 In any event, even if Appellant had properly preserved his sufficiency claim on appeal, we would find it warr ants no relief. Our independent review of the record reveals that there was ample evidence presented during the October 26, 2022 contempt hearing to establish that Appellant repeatedly texted the victim, E.S., in early August 2022, in violation of a July 13, 2022 final PFA order. See notes of testimony, 10/26/22 at 7

- 11, 14

- 17, 20

- 22.