Court Opinion

ID: 9367689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 17:07:49.764461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.365067
License: Public Domain

J-S01021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    MARY WEBER                                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    KYLE WEBER                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 727 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 2, 2022,
               in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County,
                    Civil Division at No(s): AD 2022-187.S01

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED: FEBRUARY 1, 2023

        Kyle Weber appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following

his nolo contendere plea to Indirect Criminal Contempt (ICC)1 in this

Protection From Abuse (PFA) matter. We affirm.

        The plaintiff in this case filed a PFA petition against Weber on April 21,

2022. The trial court granted a temporary PFA order with a hearing scheduled

for April 28, 2022. On April 28, 2022, Weber entered into an agreed final PFA

order without admission.2 The order provided, in relevant part, that Weber

“shall not abuse, harass, stalk, threaten, or attempt or threaten to use

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1   23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).
2 Upon entry of the final order, the plaintiff withdrew an ICC complaint that
she had filed on April 26, 2022.
J-S01021-23

physical force against” the plaintiff and that he “shall not contact Plaintiff . . .

by telephone or by any other means, including through third persons.” Final

Order, 4/28/22, at 1.

      On May 9, 2022, the plaintiff filed an ICC complaint, accusing Weber of

the following actions from April 28, 2022 to the time of the complaint:

      Daily harassing texts/calls several times per day from several
      avenues including multiple phone numbers, social media and a
      typed and signed letter addressed to me under a different return
      address name. He also continues to contact my family members
      and acquaintances. He has also made threats of murder. He lives
      in a home where firearms are readily available/accessible and has
      firearms training.

Complaint, 5/9/22, at 5.

      The next day, the plaintiff filed another ICC complaint, alleging that after

Weber was served with the previous complaint, he contacted her again with

“8 phone calls, 2 voicemails[, and] 3 texts.” Complaint, 5/10/22, at 5.

      Both ICC complaints were scheduled to be heard on May 19, 2022.

However, Weber did not appear. The trial court issued a bench warrant, and

Weber was taken into custody the next day. At a bench warrant hearing, the

trial court entered an order releasing Weber, noting that Weber said he turned

himself in. Later, the trial court determined that Weber had not been truthful

about turning himself in and therefore vacated its order. Weber remained in

custody until the ICC hearing, which was rescheduled to June 2, 2022.

      On June 2, 2022, Weber entered nolo contendere pleas to both ICC

complaints. For the first ICC, the trial court sentenced Weber to six months

of probation with restrictive conditions, including two months in jail and four

                                       -2-
J-S01021-23

months of house arrest. For the second ICC, the trial court sentenced Weber

to a consecutive term of six months of probation. For both, the trial court

imposed the statutory minimum fine of $300.00.

      On June 10, 2022, Weber filed a motion to reconsider or modify his

sentence, which the trial court denied on June 14, 2022.            Weber timely

appealed on June 21, 2022. The trial court heard and denied Weber’s motion

for nominal bond pending appeal. Weber and the trial court complied with

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

      Weber raises one issue for review: “Is the sentence imposed upon Mr.

Weber unreasonable, manifestly excessive, and an abuse of discretion?”

Weber’s Brief at 4. Weber’s argument challenges the discretionary aspects of

his sentence of probation with restrictive conditions for his first ICC conviction,

not his sentence of probation for his second ICC conviction. Id. at 9.

            Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not
      appealable as of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d
      73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015). Rather, an appellant challenging the
      sentencing court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction
      by (1) filing a timely notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the
      issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify the
      sentence; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a
      separate section of the brief setting forth a concise statement of
      the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
      discretionary aspects of a sentence; and (4) presenting a
      substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
      appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), or
      sentencing norms.       Id.    An appellant must satisfy all four
      requirements. Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.
      Super. 2013).

Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022).

                                       -3-
J-S01021-23

      Here, Weber filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved the issue by

moving to reconsider and modify his sentence, and included a Rule 2119(f)

statement in his brief. Further, we accept that he has presented a substantial

question whether his sentence is appropriate.         See Commonwealth v.

Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (finding that a combined claim

of excessiveness and failure to consider certain factors presented a substantial

question).

      Turning to the merits of Weber’s issue, we use the following standard of

review:

      Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
      absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
      sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
      judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
      arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 592–93 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (Pa. Super.

2005).

      Weber argues that based on his lack of a violent history with the plaintiff,

the trial court should have set his minimum sentence as the time that he had

already served between his arrest and the ICC hearing. Weber’s Brief at 8.

He stresses that the plaintiff, who showed the court a half-inch-thick stack of

printed communications, did not enter any evidence as an exhibit to show that

Weber had contacted her any more than alleged in the ICC complaint. Id.

                                      -4-
J-S01021-23

      We observe that the three exhibits in evidence are what the plaintiff

alleged Weber sent prior to the final PFA order, while the temporary PFA order

was in effect. N.T., 6/2/22, at 15. The half-inch-thick stack of messages is

what the plaintiff alleged Weber sent after the entry of the final PFA order,

which formed the basis for the ICC complaints of May 9 and 10, 2022. Id. at

16. Weber pled nolo contendere to these two ICC charges and cannot now

complain about the trial court’s considering the allegations in support thereof.

      When it imposed Weber’s sentence, the trial court stated its reasons on

the record:

             Mr. Weber, PFA’s are serious business. As you see every
      Thursday, we have hearings regarding Petitions for Protection
      From Abuse. What concerns me in this case is that the temporary
      PFA was granted on April 21 of 2022, and then just a couple weeks
      later you’re sending text messages and phone calls and all kinds
      of things when you were supposed to have zero contact with Ms.
      Weber. PFA’s are court orders. They’re not something to be taken
      lightly, and it’s clear you violated them multiple times.

             I understand you pled no contest, but like I told you, no
      contest . . . has the same legal effect as pleading guilty. You
      know, I feel bad that your relationship is over. And, obviously, I
      think you probably have drug and alcohol and mental health
      issues, and we are going to try to address those. And I’m going
      to hand out sentences that I think are fair based on the facts that
      I believe you violated the PFA right after it was basically entered.
      We just can’t have that and not have you get some punishment.
      I’m not going to give you the max, or anything like that, but I
      certainly think some sanctions are appropriate.

N.T., 6/2/22, at 28–29.

      The trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that it could have

imposed a flat term of 6 months of imprisonment for each ICC conviction.

                                     -5-
J-S01021-23

Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/22, at 2 (citing Commonwealth v. Marks, 268

A.3d 457 (Pa. Super. 2021)); see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(b)(1) (providing for a

sentence including up to six months of imprisonment or probation). The court

referred to its order denying bond pending appeal, where it noted Weber’s

multiple violations of the orders against him, including a threat of murder.

Order, 6/28/22, at 2.

      Based on our review, we discern no abuse of discretion. The trial court

properly considered the plaintiff’s need for protection, as well as Weber’s

repeated violations of the order prohibiting contact. See Commonwealth v.

Felder, 176 A.3d 331, 334 (Pa. Super. 2017) (describing the purpose of the

PFA Act to protect abuse victims from perpetrators).     In the context of an

abusive relationship, any communication can perpetrate the abuse.        See

Commonwealth v. Lambert, 147 A.3d 1221, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Despite Weber’s lack of a prior record, the trial court recognized the need to

impress upon Weber the significance of the repeated violations of the PFA

order. It thus did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence.

      Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/1/2023

                                    -6-