Court Opinion

ID: 9412814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 17:09:24.097422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.686865
License: Public Domain

J-S24040-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SEAN MICHAEL BLUM                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1607 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal
                Division at No(s): CP-49-MD-0000500-2022

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023

       Sean Blum appeals from the October 26, 2022 judgment of sentence of

6 months’ imprisonment and a $300 fine and court costs imposed after he was

found guilty of indirect criminal contempt1 of a Protection From Abuse (“PFA”)

order. For the following reasons, we deem the issue Appellant attempts to

raise herein to be waived and affirm his judgment of sentence.2

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are not relevant

to our disposition and need not be reiterated here.        On appeal, Appellant

purports to challenge whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).

2 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief in this matter.
J-S24040-23

evidence to sustain his conviction for indirect criminal contempt of the PFA

order. See Appellant’s brief at 9-10.

      Our standard of review in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence is as follows:

            In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
            determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and
            all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in
            the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
            verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of
            the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.           As an
            appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence
            and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
            finder. Any question of doubt is for 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.

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations

omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).

      A court may hold a defendant in indirect criminal contempt and punish

him in accordance with the law where the police have filed charges of indirect

criminal contempt against the defendant for violating a PFA order issued

pursuant to the domestic relations code. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).

            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. Where a
            PFA order is involved, an indirect criminal contempt
            charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of
            the protective order.

            ....

            To establish indirect criminal contempt, it must be
            shown that 1) the order was sufficiently clear to the

                                     -2-
J-S24040-23

            contemnor as to leave no doubt of the conduct
            prohibited; 2) the contemnor had notice of the order;
            3) the act must have been one prohibited by the
            order; and 4) the intent of the contemnor in
            committing the act must have been wrongful.

Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994, 996-997 (Pa.Super. 2005)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 897 A.2d

454 (Pa. 2006).

      Before we address the merits of Appellant’s sufficiency challenge,

however, we must determine whether he has properly preserved it for our

review.   In his Rule 1925(b) concise statement, Appellant alleged:        “The

evidence introduce [sic] at an indirect criminal contempt hearing was

insufficient to prove [A]ppellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt.”   See

“Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),”

12/5/22, at ¶ 1. The trial court found that Appellant waived his sufficiency

claim by failing to specify the element or elements of indirect criminal

contempt that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. See trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 1/11/23 at 1. We agree with

this assessment.

      In Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal

denied, 250 A.3d 1158 (Pa. 2021), a panel of this Court held that:

            [w]e have repeatedly held that [i]n order to preserve
            a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
            appeal, an appellant’s [Rule] 1925(b) statement must
            state with specificity the element or elements upon
            which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
            insufficient. ... Therefore, when an appellant’s

                                    -3-
J-S24040-23

              1925(b) statement fails to specify the element or
              elements upon which the evidence was insufficient[,]
              ... the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal.

Id. at 496 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

       Upon review, we concur that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement fails to

articulate the elements of indirect criminal contempt of a PFA order for which

he believes the evidence had been insufficient. Accordingly, we agree with

the trial court that Appellant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence.3

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/01/2023

____________________________________________

3 In any event, even if Appellant had properly preserved his sufficiency claim

on appeal, we would find it warrants no relief. Our independent review of the
record reveals that there was ample evidence presented during the October
26, 2022 contempt hearing to establish that Appellant repeatedly texted the
victim, E.S., in early August 2022, in violation of a July 13, 2022 final PFA
order. See notes of testimony, 10/26/22 at 7-11, 14-17, 20-22.

                                           -4-