J-S05020-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

I.B.N.

Appellee

v.

C.H. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 333 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County

Civil Division at No(s): No. 2022-0174

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: APRIL 15, 2024

Appellant, C.H., appeals from the order entered in the Cambria County 

Court of Common Pleas, which found Appellant in indirect criminal contempt 

of court for violating an order under the Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) Act,1

in favor of I.B.N. (“Victim”). We affirm. 

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

Appellant and Victim were married, and they are the parents of a minor child. 

On January 14, 2022, Victim filed a PFA petition against Appellant. The 

petition alleged that Appellant physically abused his child, and he verbally 

abused Victim when she attempted to intervene on the child’s behalf. The 

petition also documented other threats Appellant had made against Victim and 

____________________________________________

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122. 
J-S05020-24

- 2 -

the child. On January 24, 2022, the court entered an “agreed” order stating 

that Appellant “shall not abuse, harass, threaten or stalk” Victim, and 

Appellant “shall have no direct or indirect contact with” Victim. (Order, filed 

1/24/22, at ¶1). The order would remain in effect for eighteen (18) months

unless the court modified or terminated it. 

On October 10, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint 

alleging that Appellant was in contempt of the PFA order. The complaint 

stemmed from the following incidents that Victim reported to police: 1) 

Appellant used his cell phone to record Victim while she was working; 2)

someone smashed the windows of the vehicles owned by Victim and her 

family; and 3) Appellant’s adult son from a prior relationship, Matthew 

Vandergrift, repeatedly drove past Victim while wearing a ski mask and 

recorded her. (See Affidavit of Probable Cause, dated 10/8/22, at 1). As part 

of their investigation, police interviewed Kylie Kanehl. Ms. Kanehl is the exgirlfriend of both Appellant and Victim, and she also has a PFA order against 

Appellant. Significantly, Ms. Kanehl informed police that she had heard 

Appellant speak with Mr. Vandergrift about vandalizing the vehicles owned by 

Victim and her relatives. 

The court conducted a contempt hearing on February 21, 2023. At that 

time, the court received testimony from Victim, Ms. Kanehl, Mr. Vandergrift, 

and police witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court continued 

the matter to receive additional testimony. The hearing resumed on March 3, 
J-S05020-24

- 3 -

2023. At that time, Appellant presented testimony from his current girlfriend, 

Nicole Eash. Ms. Eash claimed to have been present for an earlier 

conversation between Appellant, Mr. Vandergrift, and Ms. Kanehl. Contrary 

to Ms. Kanehl’s assertions, Ms. Eash claimed that Appellant did not hatch a

plot to vandalize Victim’s vehicles. Rather, Ms. Eash testified that Ms. Kanehl 

suggested the acts of vandalism. (See N.T. Hearing, 3/3/23, at 6). Appellant 

also testified and denied asking Mr. Vandergrift to damage Victim’s vehicles. 

(Id. at 14). 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Appellant guilty of 

indirect criminal contempt.2 The court placed Appellant on probation with 

restrictive conditions for ninety (90) days, and it ordered Appellant to pay a 

$300.00 fine. Appellant timely filed a petition for reconsideration on March 

13, 2023. In it, Appellant challenged the weight and sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the contempt conviction. On March 20, 2023, the court 

denied the petition for reconsideration. 

Despite having counsel, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on 

March 17, 2023, while the reconsideration petition was pending. This Court 

remanded the matter on May 30, 2023. In our remand order, we noted that 

Appellant was represented by counsel in the trial court, and there was no 

indication that counsel had withdrawn. Thus, we directed the trial court to 

____________________________________________

2 Although the court dictated the contempt order on the record at the end of 

the hearing, the order was not docketed until March 8, 2023. 
J-S05020-24

- 4 -

clarify the status of counsel’s representation. On June 12, 2023, the trial court 

filed a response indicating: 1) prior counsel no longer represented Appellant; 

2) the court had appointed current counsel; and 3) current counsel should file 

a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Current counsel subsequently complied with the court’s Rule 1925(b) order. 

Appellant now raises one issue for this Court’s review: 

Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s petition 

to reconsider/overturn verdict in regards to its finding 

Appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt of a PFA order 

which had been entered against him? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 5). 

“[W]hen reviewing a contempt conviction, much reliance is given to the 

discretion of the trial judge. Accordingly, we are confined to a determination 

of whether the facts support the trial court decision.” Commonwealth v. 

Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937, 939 (Pa.Super. 2002) (quoting Williams v. 

Williams, 681 A.2d 181, 183 (Pa.Super. 1996), aff’d, 554 Pa. 465, 721 A.2d 

1072 (1998)). “We will reverse a trial court’s determination only when there 

has been a plain abuse of discretion.” Id. “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 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571, 577 (Pa.Super. 2003), 

appeal denied, 581 Pa. 671, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004)). 
J-S05020-24

- 5 -

On appeal, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth’s witnesses 

failed to link him to the purported actions of Mr. Vandergrift. To the extent 

that the Commonwealth relied on Ms. Kanehl’s testimony to create such a link, 

Appellant insists that Ms. Kanehl lacked credibility. Although Ms. Kanehl “did 

testify that there was a conversation Appellant initiated regarding vandalism 

and getting even with the victim,” Appellant emphasizes that each of his 

witnesses denied that Appellant initiated this conversation. (Appellant’s Brief 

at 11). Appellant insists that “[t]he credible testimony clearly shows that 

Appellant cut off any conversations by Kylie Kanehl regarding damages, and 

that he would never do that.” (Id. at 12). On this record, Appellant concludes 

that his indirect criminal contempt conviction is against the weight and 

sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree. 

The following principles govern our review of a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence: 

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency 

claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the 

benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the 

evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the 

verdict when it establishes each material element of the 

crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 

Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be 

resolved by 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. 

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that 
J-S05020-24

- 6 -

the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a 

crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where 

the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. 

Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that

of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, 

accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s 

crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s 

convictions will be upheld. 

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super. 

2013)). 

Additionally, 

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder 

of the fact who is free to believe all, part or none of 

the evidence and to determine the credibility of the 

witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its 

judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may 

only reverse the ... verdict if it is so contrary to the 

evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. 

Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d 

666, 672-73 (1999). Moreover, where the trial court has 

ruled on the weight claim below, an appellant court’s role is 

not to consider the underlying question of whether the 

verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, 

appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably 

abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. 

Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 

(2003), cert denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) 

(most internal citations omitted). 

“The purpose of the PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence 

from those who perpetrate such abuse, with the primary goal of advance 
J-S05020-24

- 7 -

prevention of physical and sexual abuse.” E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509, 519 

(Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260, 1262 

(Pa.Super. 2008)). 

Where a PFA order is involved, an [indirect criminal 

contempt] charge is designed to seek punishment for 

violation of the protective order. 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. To establish indirect criminal contempt, the 

Commonwealth must prove: 1) the order was sufficiently 

definite, clear, and specific to the contemnor as to leave no 

doubt of the conduct prohibited; 2) the contemnor had 

notice of the order; 3) the act constituting the violation must 

have been volitional; and 4) the contemnor must have acted 

with wrongful intent. 

Commonwealth v. Lambert, 147 A.3d 1221, 1226 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Instantly, Victim testified that she had an active PFA order against 

Appellant. (See N.T. Hearing, 2/21/23, at 5). Despite this order, Victim

encountered Appellant in September 2022, while she was completing tasks for 

her job: 

... I was coming up Bedford Street, and there was an alley 

right across the street from my mom’s house. As we were 

going up, we seen his car sitting there, and me and my 

patient ... were driving up and he was ready for us. I don’t 

know how he knew, what, it was like he was there just 

recording us as we went up the street. 
J-S05020-24

- 8 -

(Id. at 7).3 

Victim’s patient, Brenda Morris, confirmed Victim’s account. (Id. at 29-

30). Ms. Morris, who had met Appellant on prior occasions, expressly 

identified Appellant as the individual in the car near Bedford Street. (Id. at 

31). Ms. Morris explained that Victim’s demeanor changed after the sighting, 

and Victim “was like way out of character.” (Id. at 30). 

Victim also testified that she noticed Mr. Vandergrift following her in 

September 2022. Initially, Victim observed Mr. Vandergrift driving past Ms. 

Morris’ residence: “I came out and was talking to someone ... and [Mr. 

Vandergrift] drove past with his ... video camera just videotaping as he drove 

past in a ski mask.” (Id. at 9). Despite the use of a ski mask, Victim knew it 

was Mr. Vandergrift because she recognized his “blue truck.” (Id. at 10). On 

other occasions, Mr. Vandergrift drove past Victim in the same truck, and 

Victim saw his face without the mask. (Id.) 

Aside from these encounters with Appellant and Mr. Vandergrift, Victim

described the damage to her vehicles. Victim stated that she had used her 

parents’ van and parked it at her residence. The next morning, Victim

discovered that two of the windows on the van had been smashed.4 Then, 

____________________________________________

3 Victim testified that she worked as a home healthcare aide. (See N.T. 

Hearing, 2/21/23, at 6). As part of her job, Victim transported patients to 

their medical appointments. (Id.) 

4 Victim discovered the damage to the van on September 24, 2022. (See

Affidavit of Probable Cause at 1). 
J-S05020-24

- 9 -

Victim “woke up the next day, came out,” and discovered her own vehicle’s 

“back window and ... side window [were] smashed.” (Id. at 11). 

Later at the hearing, Johnstown Police Department Detective Sergeant 

Cory Adams testified that he reviewed surveillance video from Victim’s home 

as part of the investigation. The surveillance video captured “a blue Ford 

Explorer Sport Trac,” which Victim identified as Mr. Vandergrift’s vehicle. (Id.

at 62). Mr. Vandergrift’s vehicle passed Victim’s residence multiple times

during the early morning hours of September 25, 2022. The surveillance video 

also captured two individuals approaching Victim’s residence on foot at 2:33 

a.m., “passing all other vehicles, and they smash the driver’s side and rear 

window of the victim’s vehicle.” (Id. at 63). After smashing the windows, the 

vandals proceeded to a location “where the blue Explorer Sport Trac was 

parked.” (Id. at 63-64). Detective Sergeant Adams noted that one of the 

vandals “matches the physical description of Mr. Vandergrift. He’s a tall, 

skinny, appears to be young, male.” (Id. at 65). 

Testimony from Ms. Kanehl linked Appellant to the vandalism. Ms. 

Kanehl testified that Appellant “was just really very angry that [Victim] was 

able to even get a PFA and that she took his son and he was going to fight the 

PFA no matter what.” (Id. at 36). Ms. Kanehl continued: 

There are many things that [Appellant] said about wanting 

to do to [Victim.] ... Talking about breaking out windows, 

pounding on her windows at her home, scaring [Victim], 

following her. He did talk about getting back at her 

stepfather, Bill, for taking her side, her parents taking her 

side. There was much talk about her getting hurt and then 
J-S05020-24

- 10 -

he would have to take [their son] back. 

(Id. at 39). Ms. Kanehl indicated that she and Mr. Vandergrift were present 

for Appellant’s conversations about exacting revenge on Victim, and Appellant 

asked Mr. Vandergrift to slash the tires on Victim’s vehicle, break the windows

on the vehicle, and harass Victim. (See id. at 41-42). Ms. Kanehl notified 

Victim about these conversations via Facebook messages sent on September 

8, 2022. (Id. at 44). 

The court evaluated this testimony and found Victim and Ms. Kanehl to 

be credible: 

Reviewing the evidence, this court found that, through 

circumstantial evidence, that [Appellant] did in fact have 

indirect contact with the victim. This court, although it did 

question some of the testimony of Ms. Kanehl, did find her 

credible in that she heard conversations that [Appellant] 

was going to cause damage to the victim’s property. The 

court believed that [Appellant] communicated his intent to 

cause damage to the victim’s property, which in fact 

happened.... This clearly is indirect contact which is 

prohibited in the agreed order. 

The court further found the testimony of the victim credible 

in that she has seen both [Appellant] and his son 

videotaping her, with no provocation. This is also uninvited 

contact that violates the agreed order. 

The court recognizes that there is great animosity between 

the parties, however, the Commonwealth did produce 

evidence to show that the actions of [Appellant] were in 

violation of the agreed order. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/17/23, at 6-7) (some capitalization omitted). 

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, 

sufficient evidence supported the contempt conviction. See Sebolka, supra. 
J-S05020-24

- 11 -

Despite Appellant’s bald assertion that his own witnesses disproved Ms. 

Kanehl’s testimony, the court was free to credit Ms. Kanehl’s statements

regarding the inculpatory conversation between Appellant and Mr. Vandergrift. 

See Champney, supra. Moreover, the court evaluated Appellant’s petition 

for reconsideration and determined that the verdict was not so contrary to the 

evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. We cannot say that the court 

abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion. Id. Because the facts 

support the court’s decision, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding 

Appellant in contempt of the PFA order. See Kolansky, supra. Accordingly, 

no relief is due. 

Order affirmed. 

DATE: 04/15/2024