Court Opinion

ID: 9900866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 17:08:12.732903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:21.817238
License: Public Domain

J-S32034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    CARA SUTKINS                               :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DANIEL MONDELICE                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :    No. 321 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
                             2022-CV-07745-AB

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                         FILED: NOVEMBER 20, 2023

       Appellant Daniel Mondelice appeals from the judgment of sentence1

imposed after he was found in indirect criminal contempt2 (ICC) of an order

entered pursuant to the Protection from Abuse (PFA) Act.3 Appellant claims

that the trial court erred by trying him in absentia. We vacate the judgment

of sentence and remand for a new trial.

       On October 10, 2022, the trial court entered a temporary PFA order on

behalf of Cara Sutkins (Complainant) and her two children against Appellant,

the father of her children.        The temporary order prohibited Appellant from

having any contact with Complainant or the children. A sheriff’s deputy served
____________________________________________

1It is not clear from the record why this case was not assigned a criminal
docket number and caption.

2 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114.

3 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122.
J-S32034-23

Appellant with the temporary PFA order on October 19, 2022. That same day,

the trial court entered an amended temporary PFA order providing Appellant

with supervised visitation with his children.

       On November 1, 2022, the Susquehanna Township Police Department

filed a criminal complaint charging Appellant with ICC and alleging that on

October 20, 2022, Appellant contacted Complainant via e-mail in violation of

the temporary PFA order.          See Criminal Compl., MJ-12000-MD-659-2022,

11/1/22.

       After Appellant was charged with ICC, the trial court4 explained:

       [Appellant] was initially scheduled for [a bench trial] on November
       16, 2022. However, [Appellant] appeared without counsel and
       advised [the trial court] that he was seeking a continuance so he
       could apply for the assistance of court-appointed counsel through
       the Dauphin County Public Defender’s Office. A representative of
       the Public Defender’s Office was present and indicated [Appellant]
       was told to apply. [Appellant’s] next date for [trial] was scheduled
       by the court for December 7, 2022 at 1:30 pm and he was
       specifically instructed to appear on that date. On December 7,
       2022, neither [Appellant] nor counsel appeared before the court
       on behalf of [Appellant]. [The trial court then held a bench trial
       of Appellant in absentia.]

       After concluding the [trial] and finding [Appellant] guilty of the
       ICC, the court issued a capias[5] for his arrest.

____________________________________________

4 The Honorable Jeffrey B. Engle presided over Appellant’s trial and
sentencing. The Honorable Richard A. Lewis presided over the November 16,
2022 and December 14, 2022 hearings.

5 “‘Capias’ is Latin for ‘that you take’ and is the general name for several
species of writs that require an officer to take a named defendant into
custody.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 786 A.2d 173, 174 n.1 (Pa. 2001)
(citation omitted). During the December 14, 2022 hearing, Senior Judge
Lewis referred to Judge Engle’s capias as a “warrant.” N.T., 12/14/22, at 5.

                                           -2-
J-S32034-23

Trial Ct. Op., 3/21/23, at 1-2 (some formatting altered).

     One week later, Appellant appeared pro se before Senior Judge Lewis

on December 14, 2022, although this date was not scheduled, and Appellant

was still unrepresented. See Appellant’s Brief at 8. At the December 14,

2022 hearing, the following exchange occurred:

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: Okay. Anything you wish to say?

     [Appellant]: Yes. I don’t have legal counsel. I was not really
     aware that – actually aware that it was today at 1:30. That’s why
     I’m here today. At 1:30, I actually called the PD’s office. They
     even said it was today. But I’m not able to get representation. It
     was too late. Now I’m working on legal representation. I would
     really like legal representation, because from the very beginning,
     even – I know it’s not involved. But the PFA shouldn’t have even
     been in effect. I didn’t have legal counsel for that. I haven’t had
     a chance –

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: What didn’t he show up for?

     [The Commonwealth]: We had a [bench trial] on December 7 th.
     He picked that date.

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: For what?

     [The Commonwealth]: For a PFA violation.

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: For indirect [criminal contempt]?

     [The Commonwealth]: Yes.

     [Appellant]: I would like to defend myself in the record with what’s
     being alleged, because my children were involved and I was –

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: It’s no longer alleged.      You were found
     guilty.

     [Appellant]: But I wasn’t here to defend myself.

     [Senior Judge Lewis]: Because you didn’t show up.

     [Appellant]: Again, I was trying to get legal counsel. Even the
     PD’s office yesterday told me it was today. I thought it was today.

                                    -3-
J-S32034-23

        I agreed upon today. I didn’t agree upon the 7th at all. And I
        would just like the chance to defend myself, because I have a
        warrant out for my arrest. It’s not like I skipped on purpose. I
        work two jobs –

N.T., 12/14/22, at 4-5.

        Appellant stated several more times that he wanted an opportunity to

defend himself against the ICC charge. Id. at 5, 7, 8-9. Senior Judge Lewis

lifted the capias, set Appellant’s bail at ROR, and informed Appellant that his

sentencing hearing was scheduled for December 21, 2022. Id. at 6-8; see

also Trial Ct. Order, 12/14/22.

        The trial court held a sentencing hearing on December 21, 2022. The

public defender represented Appellant at sentencing.            The trial court

sentenced Appellant to a term of six months’ probation, with the condition

that the first month of probation was to be served on house arrest with

electronic monitoring. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion seeking

reconsideration of sentence.

        On February 1, 2023, the trial court resentenced Appellant to six

months’ probation without the house arrest condition. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

        On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

        Whether the trial court erred in proceeding in absentia for an
        indirect criminal contempt [trial] when [Appellant] was pro se, and
        there was no determination at the time whether the absence was
        for good cause?

                                       -4-
J-S32034-23

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

      Appellant argues that he preserved his claim because he objected at the

earliest possible time before Senior Judge Lewis, specifically during the

December 14, 2022 hearing. Id. at 11-12. Appellant notes that during the

December 14, 2022 hearing, he explained that he believed that his ICC trial

was scheduled for December 14th, not December 7th, 2022.            Id. at 12.

Appellant further contends that he objected to being tried in absentia on

December 14, 2022 when asked for the opportunity to defend himself. Id.

(citing N.T., 12/14/22, at 4-5). Appellant further claims that because he was

pro se at the time, this Court should liberally construe the arguments he made

to the trial court protesting his trial and conviction in absentia. Id. (citing,

inter alia, Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.

1996)).

      Appellant argues that the trial court erred by trying him in absentia on

December 7, 2022, because there was good cause for his absence, and the

Commonwealth did not object to continuing the trial.      Id. at 15-16 (citing

Commonwealth v. Pantano, 836 A.2d 948, 949-51 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

Appellant asserts that his confusion about the trial date and his voluntary

appearance in court before Senior Judge Lewis, on December 14, 2022, albeit

impromptu, demonstrate that he had good cause for his absence at trial. Id.

at 16-17. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to determine if Appellant

had notice of the trial date, Appellant’s whereabouts, or if Appellant was still

proceeding pro se before proceeding with a trial in absentia.       Id. at 18.

                                     -5-
J-S32034-23

Appellant contends that because he was representing himself at the time, the

trial court should have been more accommodating. Id.

       Both the trial court and the Commonwealth contend that Appellant

waived this claim because he did not raise it before the trial court at

sentencing. Trial Ct. Op. at 2-3; Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.

       Before we examine whether Appellant properly preserved his claim, we

must address whether Appellant was denied the right to counsel, which we

may raise sua sponte. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, 158 A.3d

117, 122 (Pa. Super. 2017) (stating that “it is apparent that this Court has a

duty to review whether the [defendant] properly waived his right to counsel

prior to his suppression hearing even though [the defendant] has not asserted

this issue on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Akins, 1356 WDA 2018, 2019 WL

2246260, at *1 & n.3 (Pa. Super. filed May 24, 2019) (unpublished mem.)

(addressing sua sponte “whether [the defendant’s] right to counsel was

satisfied” in defendant’s trial for ICC).6

       “As with those accused of any crime, one charged with indirect criminal

contempt is to be provided the safeguards which statute and criminal

procedures afford.”      Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108, 110

(Pa. Super. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also

Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198, 1203 (Pa. Super. 2003)

(explaining that the “the assistance of counsel” is one of the procedural
____________________________________________

6 We may cite to non-precedential memorandum decisions filed by this Court

after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

                                           -6-
J-S32034-23

safeguards for defendants charged with ICC (citations omitted)). The PFA Act

explicitly provides that a defendant charged with ICC “shall be entitled to

counsel.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114(b)(3).

       To waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se, a “defendant must

demonstrate that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waives his right

to counsel.”     Commonwealth v. Brooks, 104 A.3d 466, 474 (Pa. 2014)

(citation omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2).

       This Court has explained:

       In order to make a knowing and intelligent waiver, the individual
       must be aware of both the nature of the right and the risks and
       consequences of forfeiting it.

       Moreover, the presumption must always be against the waiver of
       a constitutional[7] right. Nor can waiver be presumed where the
       record is silent. The record must show, or there must be an
       allegation and evidence which shows, that an accused was offered
       counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer.

       Thus, for this Court to uphold such a waiver, the record must
       clearly demonstrate an informed relinquishment of a known right.

____________________________________________

7 Although the right to counsel at issue here is statutory in nature, the
requirements to waive that right are the same as when a defendant waives
the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and by Article I, Section Nine of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
See, e.g., Akins, 2019 WL 2246260, at *3; accord Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 970 A.2d 455, 458 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (concluding that
because the PCRA court did not conduct a colloquy pursuant to Rule 121, the
record did not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently waived his right to counsel, and explaining although the right to
counsel “in the PCRA context is not constitutionally derived, the importance of
that right cannot be diminished merely due to its rule-based derivation.”).

                                           -7-
J-S32034-23

Commonwealth v. Phillips, 93 A.3d 847, 852 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted and formatting altered).

     Where a defendant seeks to waive his right to counsel, the Pennsylvania

Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the following requirements:

     To ensure that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is
     knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, the judge . . . at a minimum,
     shall elicit the following information from the defendant:

        (a)   that the defendant understands that he or she has the
              right to be represented by counsel, and the right to have
              free counsel appointed if the defendant is indigent;

        (b)   that the defendant understands the nature of the charges
              against the defendant and the elements of each of those
              charges;

        (c)   that the defendant is aware of the permissible range of
              sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged;

        (d)   that the defendant understands that if he or she waives
              the right to counsel, the defendant will still be bound by
              all the normal rules of procedure and that counsel would
              be familiar with these rules;

        (e)   that the defendant understands that there are possible
              defenses to these charges that counsel might be aware
              of, and if these defenses are not raised at trial, they may
              be lost permanently; and

        (f)   that the defendant understands that, in addition to
              defenses, the defendant has many rights that, if not
              timely asserted, may be lost permanently; and that if
              errors occur and are not timely objected to, or otherwise
              timely raised by the defendant, these errors may be lost
              permanently.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2).     Rule 121 further requires that, “[w]hen the

defendant seeks to waive the right to counsel . . . the judge shall ascertain

                                    -8-
J-S32034-23

from the defendant, on the record, whether this is a knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent waiver of counsel.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(C).

      This Court has explained:

      Failing to conduct an on the record colloquy pursuant to Rule
      121(C) before allowing a defendant to proceed pro se constitutes
      reversible error. . . .

      The inherent importance of the right to counsel justifies its
      overwhelming protection and the rigorous requirements necessary
      to find waiver.

                                  *    *    *

      A judge’s thorough inquiry into the accused’s appreciation of both
      the right to counsel and the right to represent oneself must be
      used in certain summary proceedings, at trial, guilty plea
      hearings, sentencing, and every critical stage of a criminal
      proceeding.     A critical stage in a criminal proceeding is
      characterized by an opportunity for the exercise of judicial
      discretion or when certain legal rights may be lost if not exercised
      at that stage.

Johnson, 158 A.3d at 121-22 (citations omitted and some formatting

altered).

      Further, we are mindful that this Court has explained, “[i]t is well

established that in Pennsylvania when a defendant fails to appear for trial

without cause, he or she may be tried in absentia. To try a defendant without

counsel, however, is a completely different matter.”      Commonwealth v.

Ford, 715 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citations omitted).

      In Ford, the trial court convicted an unrepresented defendant in

absentia, but this Court observed that there was no evidence in the record

that the defendant knowingly waived of his right to counsel prior to trial. Id.

                                      -9-
J-S32034-23

at 1144. This Court drew a distinction between a fugitive forfeiting the right

to be present at trial and the right to counsel, concluding that a defendant’s

failure to appear at trial was “not tantamount to a knowing waiver[]” of his

right to counsel and that “[a]n inquisitional trial without counsel, . . . is not a

permissible punishment for fugitive status.” Id. at 1144-45. Therefore, the

Ford Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence and remanded for

a new trial. Id. at 1146; see also Akins, 2019 WL 2246260, at *3 (vacating

the judgment of sentence and remanding for a new trial after concluding that

the defendant was deprived of his statutory right to counsel at trial because

the trial court did not conduct an on-the-record colloquy to confirm that the

defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to

counsel).

      Here, the trial court explained that on November 16, 2022, Appellant

appeared pro se and requested a continuance of his trial for ICC to obtain

counsel. Trial Ct. Op. at 1. The trial court granted Appellant’s request for a

continuance. Id. On December 7, 2022, Appellant failed to appear for trial

and counsel did not appear on Appellant’s behalf. Id. The trial court then

proceeded with the trial in absentia and convicted Appellant of ICC. Id. at 1-

2. The trial court also observed that Appellant “apparently did not apply for

the assistance of the Public Defender’s Office, otherwise counsel would have

been present.” Id. at 2 (footnote omitted).

      Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that Appellant

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.        See

                                      - 10 -
J-S32034-23

Phillips, 93 A.3d at 852. The trial court did not conduct an on-the-record

colloquy regarding Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel during the

November 16, 2022 hearing. While a defendant’s failure to appear for trial

may result in the forfeiture of his right to be present during trial, the same is

not true for the defendant’s right to counsel. See Ford, 715 A.2d at 1144-

45.    Because the record does not indicate that Appellant knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel pursuant to Rule 121,

the trial court erred by trying Appellant in absentia without counsel to

represent Appellant.8 See id.; see also Akins, 2019 WL 2246260, at *3;

Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2), (C).

       For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant was deprived of his

statutory right to counsel, and we are constrained to vacate Appellant’s

judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.9

____________________________________________

8 To the extent that the trial court concluded that it could try Appellant in
absentia without counsel for Appellant because Appellant failed to submit an
application to the Public Defender’s Office, the failure to apply for a public
defender is not a substitute for a knowing, voluntarily, and intelligent waiver
of the right to counsel. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Murphy, 214 A.3d
675, 679 (Pa. Super. 2019) (concluding that the exchange between the trial
court and the defendant where, among others, the defendant acknowledged
that he did not hire counsel nor apply for a public defender “fell well short of
a colloquy memorializing a knowing and voluntarily waiver of counsel”
(citations omitted)).

9 In light of our disposition, we do not reach Appellant’s claim thatthe trial
court erred by trying Appellant in absentia because Appellant had good cause
for his absence on the day of trial.

                                          - 11 -
J-S32034-23

      Judgment of sentence vacated.     Case remanded for a new trial.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/20/2023

                               - 12 -