J-S42027-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

GORDON FRENCH 

 Appellant No. 1554 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Order September 11, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-53-MD-0000085-2015 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2016 

Gordon French appeals from the order entered on September 11, 2015 

in the Potter County Court of Common Pleas, which found him in indirect 

criminal contempt of a prior Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) order1 and 

sentenced him to three months’ of probation, with appropriate fees, and to 

pay a $300 fine with court costs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm 

the order. 

 French’s sole issue is a claim the verdict is against the sufficiency of 

the evidence. However, the substance of his argument is that the 

Commonwealth’s evidence was not credible. See French’s Brief at 6-12. A 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114. 
J-S42027-16 

- 2 - 

challenge to the credibility of evidence represents a claim that the verdict 

was against the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 

A.3d 932, 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (argument directed to credibility challenges 

weight, not sufficiency of evidence). 

 A challenge to the weight of the evidence must be preserved before 

the trial court in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal 

Procedure.2 Here, counsel failed to properly preserve the issue before the 

trial court.3 

____________________________________________ 

2

 A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence shall be 

raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial: 

 (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; 

 (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or 

 (3) in a post-sentence motion. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). 

3

 Even if we overlooked this deficiency, we would still be compelled to affirm 

the order. The trial Court found: 

[T]he Order was definite and specific that [French] would have 

no contact with [Saunders], but for inadvertent contact. [French] 

acknowledges that he knew of the Order. Also, the actions of 

[French] were undeniably intentional in that he approached 

[Saunders] at her work station and remained there for 10-20 

minutes. Finally, [French] acted with wrongful intent in an 

attempt to convince [Saunders] to withdraw the Protection from 

Abuse Order and the criminal charges; and to inquire of her 

romantic involvement with another gentleman. 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/23/2015 at 4-5. As to the weight of the evidence, the 

trial court stated: “Due to the clear discrepancies and inconsistencies in 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S42027-16 

- 3 - 

 Because French failed to preserve the issues claimed on appeal, we 

affirm the trial court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/9/2016 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

[French]’s testimony, the Court finds that [French] is not a credible witness. 

The Court also finds [Saunders] to be credible.” Trial Court Opinion, 

11/23/2015 at 3.