J-S51020-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROBERT C. ROWE

Appellant No. 1981 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000187-1989

CP-38-CR-0000783-1989

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Robert C. Rowe appeals pro se from the order entered on October 22, 

2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, finding him in 

contempt for non-payment of restitution, and ordering him to a term of two 

months’ imprisonment, with the purge condition that he pay $300.00, and 

requiring him to pay $100.00 per month thereafter.1, 2 Rowe, formerly an 

____________________________________________

1

“[Rowe] immediately paid the $300.00 purge amount and was released 

from custody.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2013, at 8.

2 While Rowe’s appellate brief does not conform to the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure in numerous ways, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), 

(a)(4), (a)(5)(a)(11) and (a)(12), we will refrain from quashing the instant 

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Despite the brief’s inadequacies, the defects 

are not so substantial as to preclude us from understanding the issue Rowe 

raises and conducting meaningful appellate review. 
J-S51020-14

- 2 -

attorney, contends he should not be required to pay restitution because the 

Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security (PLFCS) has already 

compensated the client-victims. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The trial court has aptly detailed the facts and procedural history of 

this case, dating back to 1989, and, therefore, we need not restate the 

background of this case here. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2013, at 1–8. 

At issue in this appeal is the court’s contempt order. At the outset, we 

state our standard of review:

A trial court’s finding of contempt will not be disturbed absent 

an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an 

error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication 

of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, 

as shown by the evidence of record. 

Commonwealth v. Griffiths, 15 A.3d 73, 76–77 (Pa. 2010) (citations 

omitted). 

Here, Rowe is challenging the trial court’s contempt order, contending 

he should not be obligated to pay restitution. In effect, Rowe’s claim is 

directed to the restitution orders that underlie the contempt order, 

specifically, the court’s order of November 16, 2001, ordering Rowe to pay 

restitution to PLFCS, and the court’s order of May 10, 2012, denying Rowe’s 

motion challenging the legality of the restitution sentence, and ordering 

Rowe to continue to make restitution payments.

This Court previously found that Rowe’s August 24, 2010, challenge to 

the court’s November 16, 2001 restitution order was untimely. See 
J-S51020-14

- 3 -

Commonwealth v. Rowe, supra, 31 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. June 21, 2011) 

(unpublished memorandum). Furthermore, Rowe’s appeal from the trial 

court’s May 10, 2012, order, finding the restitution order valid and 

enforceable, was dismissed by this Court, and Rowe did not seek further 

review by this Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See 

Commonwealth v. Rowe, supra, 81 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. May 14, 2013) 

(unpublished memorandum). As Rowe’s ability to challenge these orders 

has been waived, no relief is due. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court finding Rowe in 

contempt for failure to pay restitution.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/24/2015