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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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.: FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023

Sean Blum appeals from the October 26, 2022 judgment of sentence of

6 months’ imprisonment and a $300 fine and court costs imposed after he was 

found guilty of indirect criminal contempt1 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 are 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 inferences 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 judgment for that of the factfinder. 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 against 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 presence 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 the 
J-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 

order; 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 introduce [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. The trial court found that Appellant 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 assessment.

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’s 
J-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 elements of 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: 8/01/2023

____________________________________________

3

In any event, even if Appellant had properly preserved his sufficiency claim 

on appeal, we would find it warrants 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.