### J-S77028-16 NON

### -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. DAVID ALPHONSE GOAD 

### Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 255 MDA2016 Appeal 

### fromthe Order Entered 

### November 2, 2015 In

### the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### ofSnyderCounty Criminal Division at No(s): CP-55-CR-

### 0000147-2011 CP-55-CR-

### 0000413-2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J: 

### FILED NOVEMBER

### 08, 

### 2016 Appellant, David Alphonse Goad, appeals 

### from the order entered on 

### November 2, 2015. We

### vacate and remand. The 

### factual background and 

### procedural 

### history of this case is as follows. On 

### November 24, 2014, 

### Appellant was ordered to pay costs, fees, and 

### restitution stemming from two convictions 

### for retail 

### theft. Appellant failed to make 

### the required payments and, 

### therefore, a 

### contempt hearing was held on March 24, 2015. At 

### that hearing, Appellant agreed to a 

### payment plan. 

### Appellant failed to 

### comply with the payment plan's 

### terms. Thus, a second 

### contempt hearing was held on October 30, 2015. At the October 30, 2015 

### hearing, one 

### witness 

### testified, however, 

### Appellant was not 

### permitted to cross

### -examine the witness. 

### See N.T.,



### * Retired SeniorJudge assigned to

### the Superior Court

### J-S77028-16 

### 10/30/15, at 7-9. On 

### November 2, 2015, the 

### trial court found 

### Appellant in civil 

### contempt and ordered him 

### imprisoned until he purged 

### the 

### contempt, or 

### for a 

### maximum period 

### of 15 days to 6 

### months. Appellant filed a 

### timely pro se notice of appeal. This 

### Court remanded this case to 

### the 

### trial court to 

### determine whether Appellant wished to be represented by his 

### court-appointed counsel or if he wished to proceed 

### pro

se. 

### Appellant chose to be 

### represented by counsel, who filed a 

### brief on his behalf. 

### Appellant presents one issue

### forour review: Did 

### error occur where 

### Appellant was 

### notgiven the 

### opportunity to 

### offer a defense? 

### Appellant's Briefat 5. 

### After Appellant filed his 

### brief, the parties filed a 

### joint application seeking remand 

### for a new

### contempt hearing. We agree 

### withthe parties

### that Appellant is 

### entitled to a new 

### contempt hearing. In 

### orderto 

### complywith the United States 

### Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's 

### right to due process during a civil 

### contempt hearing, a 

### defendant must have a full and 

### fair opportunityto cross

### -examine anywitnesses offered 

### against him or her. 

### See Sutch v. 

### Roxborough 

### Mem'/ Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 77 (Pa. Super. 

### 2016). As noted above, in 

### this case 

### Appellant was not provided the 

### opportunity to cross

### -examine the lone 

### witness offered against him. Thus, we conclude

### that Appellant's 

### constitutional right to due process was

### violated. Accordingly, we


## -2

### J-S77028-16 vacate the 

### order finding Appellant in 

### contempt and remand 

### for 

### further proceedings 

### consistentwiththisJudgment Order. 

### Application to remand 

### granted. Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

### Judgment Entered. 

## / J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary Date: 

### 11/8/2016



## -3