J-A10037-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JERMAINE JUSTIN COPELAND

Appellant No. 950 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-MD-0000737-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015

Appellant Jermaine Justin Copeland appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas following his 

bench trial conviction for contempt1for violating a final protection from 

abuse order (“PFA”). We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

On December 9, 2013, the court entered a PFA order against Appellant that 

provided he was to have no direct or indirect contact with his ex-girlfriend, 

Martha Mojica (“Victim”), or his and Victim’s daughter, Jazmine Copeland 

(“Daughter”), for a period of three years. N.T., 12/9/13, p. 2. On April 12, 

____________________________________________

1 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114.
J-A10037-15

- 2 -

2014, shortly after his release from prison for other charges, Appellant sent 

a text message to Victim’s mother’s phone2that stated: 

this Jermaine. I don’t want to get in trouble but I need to 

know how my daughter is doing. I been home for a little 

while, over a month now. I just couldn’t take it any 

longer. Please let me know something. I was told she was 

minor autistic. I’m worried and I miss her.

Id. at 24.

Victim’s mother was in Florida at the time and did not respond to the 

text message. Id. at 21. Appellant proceeded to call Victim’s mother on 

different days, until she eventually answered the phone and spoke with 

Appellant. Id. at 21-22. Appellant inquired about Daughter, and Victim’s 

mother told him to communicate all inquiries with the court. Id. at 22-23. 

On May 15, 2014, the court conducted a bench trial and found 

Appellant guilty of contempt for violation of a PFA order. On June 5, 2014, 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On June 11, 2014, the court 

ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and he timely complied on June 23, 

2014.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

____________________________________________

2 Victim often used her mother’s cell phone because she did not have her 

own phone, and Appellant was aware of this. Id. at 10.
J-A10037-15

- 3 -

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE 

THE FACT-FINDER TO FIND EVERY ELEMENT OF INDIRECT 

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence for his indirect criminal contempt charge. Appellant argues the 

Commonwealth neglected to establish that Appellant contacted Victim or 

Victim’s Daughter directly, that he threatened anyone, or that he made the 

calls and texts while the PFA order was active. Appellant concludes that, 

because the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence of Appellant’s 

volition or his wrongful intent, the court erred by finding the elements of his 

conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard we apply is:

whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the 

light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is 

sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In 

applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence 

and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In 

addition, we note that the facts and circumstances 

established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every 

possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless 

the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter 

of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the 

combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain 

its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire 

record must be evaluated and all evidence actually 

received must be considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact 

while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 
J-A10037-15

- 4 -

weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 

A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super.2005)).

Indirect criminal contempt is found when a “violation of an Order or 

Decree of court occurred outside the presence of the court.” 

Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal 

denied, 897 A.2d 454 (Pa.2006). “Where a PFA order is involved, an indirect 

criminal contempt charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of the 

protective order.” Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108, 110 

(Pa.Super.2007) (quoting Id. at 996). 

To establish a claim of indirect criminal contempt, the Commonwealth 

must prove the following four elements:

(1) the order [in question] must be definite, clear, specific 

and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the 

person to whom it was addressed of the conduct 

prohibited; (2) the contemnor must have had notice of the 

specific order or decree; (3) the act constituting the 

violation must have been volitional; and (4) the contemnor 

must have acted with wrongful intent.

Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198, 1203 (Pa.Super.2003) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Baker, 722 A.2d 718, 721 (Pa.Super.1998) 

(en banc), affirmed, 766 A.2d 328 (Pa.2001). 
J-A10037-15

- 5 -

An act is volitional if it is knowingly made. Brumbaugh, 932 A2d at 

110. Wrongful intent can be imputed by the substantial certainty that a 

defendant would be in contact with a victim, in violation of a PFA order. Id.

Here, Appellant admitted he knew the PFA order prohibited him from 

contacting Victim or Victim’s Daughter, either directly or indirectly. N.T., 

5/15/14, at 33. Appellant also admitted that he wrote the text messages, 

called Victim’s mother, and was fully aware that Victim did not have her own 

cellphone, sometimes used her mother’s cellphone, and that he could reach 

Victim through her mother. Id. at 36. 

Appellant’s claim that the violation occurred before the PFA was 

effective lacks foundation. Although counsel misspoke when she asked the 

Victim about the text messages in “April of 2012,” N.T., 5/15/14, at 7, 

Victim’s mother testified that she received a text message from Appellant on 

“April 12, 2014.” Id. at 24. Further, the police report reflects that the 

violation occurred in April of 2014, and Appellant admits to knowing the PFA 

was in place when he communicated with Victim’s mother. Id. at 33.

Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth failed to present evidence of 

his volition or wrongful intent lacks merit. To establish volition and wrongful 

intent, the Commonwealth must prove only that Appellant intentionally 

violated the PFA order; the substance of Appellant’s communications and 

whether they were threatening or abusive is of no consequence. See 

Brumbaugh, supra. Although Appellant testified that he did not intend for 
J-A10037-15

- 6 -

Victim to read his text messages, when asked about whose phone number 

he called, he accidentally said it belonged to Victim before correcting 

himself. N.T., 5/15/14, at 28. Further, Victim’s mother testified that when 

Appellant telephoned her, he said: “I know I’m going to get in trouble but I 

wanted to see – find out how my daughter is doing and I wanted to send her 

some money.” Id. at 22. 

As the fact-finder, the court was free to believe all, part, or none of 

the evidence presented. See Hansley, supra. After hearing all of the 

testimony, the court stated: “I do believe that you knew there was a great 

likelihood that this message would be received in some way by the protected 

party and I am going to find you guilty.” N.T., 5/15/14, at 43. 

Viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to 

the verdict winner, we hold that the Commonwealth presented sufficient 

evidence for the court to find every element of contempt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/10/2015