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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee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 Sep tember 11, 2015 in the Potter County Court of Common Pleas, which f ound him in indirect criminal contempt of a prior Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) order 1 and sentenced him to three months’ of probation, with a ppropriate fees, and to pay a $300 fine with court costs. For the reasons s et forth below, we affirm the order. French’s sole issue is a claim the verdict is agai nst the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the substance of his argumen t 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 issu e 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 t rial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sent encing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencin g; or (3) in a post-sentence motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).

3 Even if we overlooked this deficiency, we would st ill 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 con tact. [French] acknowledges that he knew of the Order. Also, the a ctions of [French] were undeniably intentional in that he app roached [Saunders] at her work station and remained there f or 10-20 minutes. Finally, [French] acted with wrongful inte nt in an attempt to convince [Saunders] to withdraw the Prot ection from Abuse Order and the criminal charges; and to inquir e of her romantic involvement with another gentleman. Trial Court Opinion, 11/23/2015 at 4-5. As to the w eight 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 claim ed on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s finding of indirect crimin al 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.” Tr ial Court Opinion, 11/23/2015 at 3.