Court Opinion

ID: 9403729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 16:09:11.847506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:09.106946
License: Public Domain

J-A06013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II                :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 676 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000432-2020

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II                :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 677 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000441-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II                :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 678 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000440-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-A06013-23

                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II                 :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 679 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000096-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON                     :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 680 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000006-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 WILLIAM M. SOLOMON                     :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 681 WDA 2022

   Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-26-MD-0000005-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :

                                  -2-
J-A06013-23

    WILLIAM MANSOUR SOLOMON II                   :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 682 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-26-MD-0000472-2020

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                   FILED: JUNE 21, 2023

        Appellant, William Mansour Solomon II, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on December 29, 2021. We affirm.

        The trial court ably explained the facts and procedural posture of this

appeal:

          On July 13, 2020, Appellant’s wife, Heather Solomon, filed for
          a temporary protection of abuse (PFA) order against
          [Appellant]. [The trial court] granted the temporary order
          and both parties appeared at the final PFA hearing held July
          27, 2020. . . . [That day, the trial court] granted a final PFA
          for the duration of two years – until July 27, 2022.

          Appellant subsequently was charged with [seven] violations
          of the July 27, 2020 final order, specifically that: (1) he made
          an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon on or about
          September 28, 2020; (2) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening
          email on or about November 28, 2020; (3) he sent Ms.
          Solomon a threatening email on or about December 22,
          2020; (4) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening email on or
          about December 29, 2020; (5) he broke and tampered with
          the front window of Ms. Solomon’s residence and tampered
          with and opened her postal mail on or about January 28,
          2021; (6) he sent Ms. Solomon threatening messages via
          Facebook on or about April 20, 2021; [and,] (7) he sent Ms.
          Solomon a threatening message via Facebook on or about
          May 4, 2021.
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -3-
J-A06013-23

                                     ...

        A bench trial was held [on] December 29, 2021 at which
        [time] Appellant was represented by counsel. He was found
        guilty of all [seven counts of indirect criminal contempt (ICC)
        and sentenced to an aggregate [term of 15 to 30 months in
        jail].

Trial Court Opinion, 8/2/22, at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).

      Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motions, Appellant

filed timely notices of appeal. At Docket Numbers 676 WDA 2022, 677 WDA

2022, 678 WDA 2022, 680 WDA 2022, 681 WDA 2022, and 682 WDA 2022,

Appellant raises the following claims:

        [1.] Whether the trial court erred in admitting emails and
        Instagram posts that were not properly authenticated to
        prove that they came from Appellant?

        [2.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient
        evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant
        violated a final PFA order?

        [3.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of
        the evidence?

See, e.g., Appellant’s Brief, 676 WDA 2022, at 10.

      At Docket Number 679 WDA 2022, Appellant raises the following claims:

        [1.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient
        evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant
        violated a final PFA order?

        [2.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of
        the evidence?

Appellant’s Brief, 679 WDA 2022, at 9.

                                     -4-
J-A06013-23

      We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Linda R.

Cordaro. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for

the reasons expressed in Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion. Therefore,

we affirm on the basis of Judge Cordaro’s thorough opinion and adopt it as

our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,

the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2023

                                      -5-
                                                                                           06/09/2023 02-07
                                                                                Circulated 08/09/2023 02:07 PM

   IN THE COURT
   IN THE COURT OF
                OFCOMMON
                   COMMON PLEAS
                          PLEASOF
                                OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                   FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                   CRIMINAL. DIVISION
                                   CRIMINAL

COMMON  ATEALTFI OF
COMMONWEALTH
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA                                       'No..
                                                   No.  432  of 2020
                                                        432 0f  202.0 M.D.
                                                                        M.D.
                                                   *No. 472 0f
                                                   No. 472   of 2020 M.D.
                                                                        M.D
              V.                                   No. *5 of
                                                   No.    0f 2021 M.D.
                                                   No. 660f
                                                   No.    of 2021 M.D
                                                                   M.D.
WILLIAM M.*SOLOMON
        M. SOLOMON II,                             No.: 06
                                                   No.     of 2021 M.D.
                                                        96 0f
                                                   Na. 440 0f
                                                   No.       of 2021 M.D.
      Appellant,
      Appellant.                                   Na 441
                                                   No.  441 0f
                                                             of 2021   AM.D.
                                                                2o2_1 -M:D.

                                        OPINION
                                        OPINION

Linda K
      R. Cordaro,
         Cordaro,.j.
                  J.

                                          SUMMARY
                                          SUMMARY

       Appellant
       Appellant wa:s comricted after aabench trial on December
                 was convicted                                  29,.2021
                                                       December 29,               (7)
                                                                    2021 on seven (7)

'counts of indirect
counts of  indirect criminal contempt
                             contempt for Aolatiou.of
                                          violation of aafinal.
                                                         final PFA order. He was sentenced

iminediately
immediately*after  trial to
             after trial    three (3)
                         to three     io six
                                  (3) to six (6)
                                             (6) months
                                                 months of incarceration
                                                           incarceration on each charge;
                                                                         on each charge' five
                                                                                         five

(5) sentences
()  sentences were
              were imposed
                   imposed as consecutive and
                           as consecutive     two (2)
                                          and two (2) were
                                                      were imposed
                                                           imposed as concurrent'with
                                                                   as concurrent with

the rest, for
the rest, for an:aggregate sentence of
              an aggregate sentence of.fifteen.  i5 }.to
                                       fifteen ((15)     thirty (3b).innonths
                                                      to thirty (30) months ofof incarceration.
                                                                                 incarceration.

Appellant no W appeals
Appellant now ­        his convictions.
               appeals his convictions.

                                PROCEDURAL B
                                PROCEDURAL  ACKGROUND.
                                           BACKGROUND

          July i.3,
       On July           Appellant's wife,
               13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather
                                           Heather Solomon, filed
                                                            filed for aatemporary

protection of abuse (PFA)
protection                order:against
                    (PFA) order against hire.                   a temporary order and
                                        him. This court granted a

set aadate and.
           and time for the final hearing.  At that hearing on Ju1y
                                  hearing. :At                          2020 ;Ms. Solomon
                                                               July 27, 2020,

    represented by
was represented by .counsel
                    counsel and Appellant appeared pro se. At the conclusion of the

hearing  this. Court granted
hearing,;this        granted a
                             a final PFA
                                     PA order effective for two years
                                                                years:—
                                                                      - until July 27, 2022.
                                                                                       2022..

                                           Page
                                           Pageiof 1.5-
                                                   15
       Appellant
       Appellant subsequently was charged
                 subsequently     charged with seven
                                               seven (7)
                                                     (7) counts of indirect criminal

cbiiten .pt for
contempt    for 1•icilatirig
                violating the    order. on
                             the order     seven (7)
                                        on seven     separate.occasioils
                                                 () separate  occasions between September 30,

2o2o:and
2o20 and Mai=
         May 4,
              4, 2021.
                 2021. A
                       A bench trial •vas'held
                                     was held December 29,
                                                       2g, 2o2r
                                                           2o21 at wliicl
                                                                   which-1Appellant

was
was represented
    represented by
                by counsel. He was found:*uilt}'
                                   found guilty on all counts
                                                       counts.and
                                                              and sentenced to an

aggregate fifteen (15)
aggregate                 thirty (30)
                  (15) to thirty      rnanths.of
                                 (3o) months  of ii.icarceration.iminediately after trial.
                                                 incarceration immediately after

       On January
       On         7;2022
          January 7, 2022,;the Fayette
                               Fayette County Clerk of Courts received a
                                                                       adocument from

Appellant's
Appellant's trial counsel:
                  counsel: "Motion
                           "Motion for.-Post-Sentence
                                   for Post Sentence Relief Pursuant
                                                            Pursuantta
                                                                     to Pa.R:Crim.Proc,
                                                                        Pa.R.Crim.Proc.

720." However; there
720." However,  bereis  n61ndication
                     is no indication that-
                                      that the document was served-
                                                            served on the Fayette

County Court
County Court Administrator.'
             Administrator Consequently,.
                             Consequently, the document was added to the
                                                                     the. case file, but

.it
 it :was never presented
               presented as a
                            a motion.
        On June
        On June 6,
                5, 2022,
                   2.022, Appellant.
                          Appellant filed a
                                          a prose            Appeal.. on
                                            pro se Notice of Appeal   on. all seven
                                                                              seven (7)
                                                                                    (7) cases

on
on the             because this Cout
       theory that because
   the theory                         had not issued
                                C01n`t.had    issued a decision on. the January
                                                       decision on      Janu.aiT 7,.
                                                                                 , 2022

post-sentence
post-sentence motion i%rithiA one hundred and twenty
                     within
                     ,                        twenty (12o).
                                                     (12o) days of filing,.
                                                                   filing, the motion

was denied by
was denied by operation
              operation of law
                           law as of
                                  af.May 7; 2022.
                                    May 7,  2022. Accordingly, Appellant
                                                               Appellant filed his Notice

of Appeal
of Appeal within
          within.thirty
                 thirty (30)
                        (3o) days of      date; This Court issued a
                                  of that date.                   a1925(b)
                                                                    ig26(b) Concise

 Statement
 Statement order and Appellant's
                     Appellant's how counsel. responded with a
                                 new counsel                 a timely:Statement
                                                               timely Statement filed at

 each of the seven above-captioned
 each of           above=captioned.matters,
                                   matters. Qn
                                            On July 25,  P_62'2, tbe
                                                         2o22,
                                                    25,. ,       the Superior Court*sua
                                                                              Court s

 sponte                  appeals..
 sponte consolidated the appeals.
                                          FACTUAi.BACKGROUND
                                          FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         .On July 13,
         On July  13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather Solomon, filed for
                                                                     for aatenporary
                                                                           temporary

 protection
 protection of abuse
               abuse (PFA)
                     (PFA) order against
                                 againsther
                                         her Husband.
                                             husband. This
                                                      'Tis Court granted the temporary

 order.and
 order and both parties appeared at the final -
                parties appeared              PFA hearing held July 27, 2020.
                                                                        2020, Ms,
                                                                              MS.

 'The document certifies
 The                                                                     the .district
               certifies service by hand delivery to the undersigned and the  district attorney:
                                                                                       attorney. However,
       i5 no record
 there i              in judicial chambers of delivery
             record . iii                     delivery. -

                                                    Page aof 15
Solomon was:
Solomon was represented
             represented by counsel, Appellant appeared.pro
                            counsel, Appellant              se, and both parties gave
                                                        pfo :

testimony.
testimony. 'I
-             iis* Court found Ms.
            This               Ms. -Solomon's
                                    Solomon's testimony to be credible and granted aafinal

PFA
PFA for the duration of two years—
                            years - until July 27, 2022:
                                                   2022.

        Appellant subsequently was charged
        Appellant subsequently     charged with seven (7).
                                                      (7) violations of the July 27,
                                                                                 27; 2020

final
final order,
      order, specifically
             specifically that: (i)
                                (1) he made
                                       made'an
                                            an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon
                                                                              Soloman on

   about`September
or about September 28,.:202'(j
                   28, 20203;  3; (2) be
                                      he ,sent Ms. Solomon aathreatening email ;on or about

November 28,
         28, 20205;
             2.0204; (3) he sent Ms. Solomon
                                     Soloman aathreatening
                                               threatening email on or about

.December 22,.20205;:.
December 22,  20205; (4).he.      Ms.. Solomon a
                       () he sent Ms.          a threatening email on or about December

29, 2020 5;.(5) he broke
29, 2020;(5)       broke: and tampered
                              tampered with the front window of Ms. Solomon's
                                                                    Sol omon's.residence
                                                                               residence

and tampered
    tampered with and opened her postal mail on
                                             on. or about January 28, 20217(6)
                                                                      2x21;%,(6) he

sent Ms. Soloi7ion
         Solomon thte* ateiiing messages
                   threatening  messages via Vacebook
                                             Facebook on or about April
                                                                  April 20,.2o?i.; 6 (7}.lie
                                                                        20, 2021;(7)     he

sent Ms. Solomon aatlreatening             Facebookon
                   threatening message via Facebook on or about May
                                                                May-4,
                                                                    4,*2'62°1.9
                                                                       2021.9

                                              ISSUES ON APPEAL

        Appellant
        Appellant raises three issues in his Concise Statement:
                                                     Statement: (1) the evidence presented

was insufficient to prove
                    prove the Appellant
                              Appellant violated the PFA       (2) Appe
                                                     PA order; (2)      l
                                                                        lant's
                                                                   Appellant's

convictions were against the weight
                             weight of evidence;
                                       evidence; ((3)the
                                                   3) the trial court
                                                                coiii-tadmitted evidence that
                                                                                         that

was.not
was     properly airthenticated,
    not properly authenticated

2This Court's findings
This                      included .
                 findi.ngs.included that the
                                    that the. Appellant
                                              Appellant:threatened Ms. Solomon on  on ;Iuly`12         hee pointed 'aa
                                                                                               2020 ;-:h
                                                                                      July 2 ;2oz0,
.gun at. her;
gun at   her, struggled
              struggled •Adtli.her,
                         with her, and attempted to prevent
                                                      prevent*her froiri leaving the.house.
                                                              her from           the house
3676. W94
366    WDA 20222022
4682 WD42022
4682   WDA 2022
  681.'WDA
681           2022
       WDA 2022
668o WDA
6680           2.022
        WDA 2022
7 679 WDA-2022
679    WDA 2022
8 678 WDA
868    WDA 20222022
9677INDA 2o22
67W42022

                                                    Page 3 0f 15
                                                         3 of15
                               JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

        There are two issues to
        There are            to `address
                                 address-before
                                         before aa. discussion of the merits
                                                                      merits of this.
                                                                                this appeal:
                                                                                      appeal: (X)'
                                                                                              {1)

the
the Notice,
    Notice of Appeal
              Appeal arguably    untimely,
                     arguably is untimely;               (2) arequest to Preppare
                                                         (2) a           prepare aatranscript of the

proceedings
proceedings has not,been
                not been received.

        As to the
              the first
                  first issue of timeliness
                                 timeliness,;.
                                             the Notice
                                                 Notice of Appeal was filed June
                                                                            June6,
                                                                                 6, 2022, one
                                                                                          one.

hundred and fifty-nine ( 159
                           *)days after the December.
            fifty-nine (159)                             2o2r imposition of sentence.
                                            December 29, 2021

'flee:
The record
       record shows that the
                         the 'Fayette       Cleric of Courts received and stamped
                             Fayette County Clerk                         stamped aa

document with
document with the title Motion
                        "Motion for Post=Sentence
                                    Post-Sentence RelieOf`from
                                                  Relief from Appellant's trial.
                                                                          trial counsel

on January 7, 2022,
   January 7, 2022, which
                    which:is.
                          is inTithin
                              within the ten-day period for aa. timely post-sentence motion

under Pa.R.Criin.P: 72o(A)(1). However, there is no indication that the
      Pa.R.Crim.P. 720A1).                                          the "motion" ever

was
was served on the
    served on the Fayette County Court Administrator as required by Pa._R.Crim.P.
                  Fayette County                                    Pa.R.Crim.

576(b)1) and local rule F.CR.Crim.P.
576(b)(i)
:                       F.C.R.Crim.P.: 575 1)•• ° Consequently, the
                                       575().°                  the "motion"
                                                                    motion" was never
                                                                                never

presented
presented to
          to this
             this Court for consideration.   In fact,
                            consideration. *In  fact, the
                                                      the existence of a
                                                                       a post-sentence filing

only came
only came'to
          to light
             light Nvheh
                   when Appellant  mentioned.it
                         Appellant mentioned  it in his prose
                                                        pro se Notice of Appeal. This
arguably       the'appeal
arguably means the appeal is untimely under Pa.
                          is untimely           R.Cr iM...P. *
                                            Pa.R.Crim.P.     72o(A)(3) since there was no
                                                             720(A)(3)

post- sentence inotion
post-sentence  motion and the appeal
                              appeal was filed more than 3o days after imposition of

sentence.
          "When post-sentencing
          When  post•sentencing*motions                                sentence.
                                motions are not filed, the judgment of sentence

constitutes a.final
            a final and appealable
                        appealable order .for
                                          for purposes of appellate
                                                          appellate.re'Viel7
                                                                     review and any appeal

 '  F;C,R.Crim,P. 575U)reads
  FCR.Crim.PR.
  9                 5750 reads as follows:
                                      follows: "The
                                                Ihe moving party shall file the original motion, Certificate of
 Presentation,
 Presentation, and anyany: attachments in.                      filing office before presentment in Motions
                                           in the appropriate fling                                               Court. An
                                                                                                       Motions Court.
 original
 original propose.d   order (if
          proposed :order    (if any.),
                                 any, aacopy
                                          copy.of  tte Certificate of Presentation, Certificate of Service, -and motion,
                                                of the
 assembled inin that order
                      order,;shall be delivered to the court administrator and.every                party of
                                                                                  and every other party   of. record.
                                                                                                              record,
 Pursuant.to
 Pursuant ta P.a.R:Crim.P.     576(B)(i), all motions and other.documents for which filing is required shall be
               Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(1(),
 served on each party
                   party and the court administrator so    so:as to: be received'atleast
                                                              as to                       two ((2)
                                                                        received at least two   2) business days before
 preseritatio*n
 presentation   in.Mations.
                in Motions    Court,
                              Court,   unless  there are emergency     circumstances   specified  in the motion requiring
                                                                                                                  requiring
 presentation
 presentation within
                within a.
                        a shorter time."

                                                           4 0f
                                                      Page 4 Of 15
                                                                15
therefrom
therefrom must be filed
                  filed.withinihirty
                        within thirty (36)
                                      (3o) days of the'imposition
                                                   the imposition of sentence."
                                                                     sentence.

Commo7aweatth V•. Bori•ero,
Commonwealth v.             69a.A.2d
                  Borrero, 692       x58,159
                                A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. Ct.
                                              (Pa. Super. Ct.19971
                                                              1997). Conversely, li]f
                                                                                 "[i]f

post-sentencing motions
post-sentencing rnotioris are
                          are timely
                              timely filed ..: judgment of sentence
                                            ..judgment     sentence. does
                                                                     does *not
                                                                           not become final

for purposes
    purposes of appeal
                appeal until -the trial court disposes of themotion,
                                                          the motion, or the motion is.denied
                                                                                    is denied

by operation of law." Id:
by operation          Id. An appropriate:order
                             appropriate order must
                                               must be on record for the Superior Court

to have jurisdiction. I
                      Id.
       Here,
       Here, the
             the December 29, 2o21 imposi₹ion.
                          29, 2021 imposition of sentence is the.
                                                             the final
                                                                  final :order
                                                                         order on record.
                                                                                  record'.

There is no -order denying
There              denying aapost-sentence
                             post=sentence.i7iotion
                                            motion (by
                                                    [by operation of lash
                                                                     law or  otherwise}
                                                                          or otherwise)

because, effectively,. no.
because, effectively,  no post-sentence  motioil was
                           post-sentence motion      ever made.
                                                 was ever       A.court
                                                          made. A court.cannot decide.
                                                                                     ,Or
                                                                        cannot decide, or

fail- to decide,
fail     decide, on a
                    amotion
                      motion. ,never presented
                                     presented to it.
                                                  it. This Court still will provide
                                                                            provideIts
                                                                                    its analysis.
                                                                                        analysis

of the nierits,
       merits, but hecause.the
                   because the December 29, 2021 order is
                                        29,            is *the
                                                           the only final, appealable
                                                                           app ealab] e. order

on record,.
   record, thin
            this appeal
                 appeal arguably is untimely.

       Asto`the
       As to the second issue of
                 second issue of a
                                 alack
                                   lack of
                                        of transcript, Appellant's pro.se
                                           transcript, Appellant's pro se Notice.of Appeal
                                                                          Notice of Appeal

certified. that
certified       a complete transcript(s)
           that."a:camplete trariscript(s) :of
                                            of the non jury and sentencing proceedings have
                                                   nor-jury

be*6  rdered in this matter." However, there is no record that any request was received
been ordered

from either Appellant or.liis
            Appellant or his counsel as under Ta.R.A.P;
                                              Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d):and
                                                        1911(d) and Pa.R.J.A..
                                                                    Pa.R.J.A. 4007(A).

The certification in
                  in the
                     the Notice of Appeal
                                   Appeal does not.
                                               not substantially comply with
                                                                        with the form
                                                                                 form of aa

request as in PA.R.A.P.
request       Pa. R.A.P. -1911(c), and it states
                          1911(0),        states that transcripts
                                                      transcripts "have been" -.ordered,
                                                                  have been"    ordered, so it

cannotbe.deemed:a
cannot be deemed a transcript
                   transcript request
                              request itself. Under Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) if an appellant fails
                                                                                      fils
                                                                                        a

to take
   take. the required
             required action for preparation
                                 preparation of the transcript,
                                                    transcript, "the
                                                                "the appellate court may take

such.. action'
such   action as it deems appropriate,
                          appropriate, which may include
                                                 include dismissal of the appeal."

                                           Page: 5. of
                                           Pages    Of 15
However ;because
However, because dismissal is not an autoimtie
                                     automatic result, this Court will provide
                                                                       provide. its analysis

of the merits of the appeal -.'1
                               1

                                                DlscussION
                                                DISCUSSION

       Appellant's'first
       Appellant's first issue is that the Commonwealth
                                           Commonwealth. failed to produce sufficient
                                                                           sufficient

evidenceta
evidence    grave Appellant
         to prove Appellant violated the provisions
                                         provisions.ofof.the          • o2o PFA
                                                         the July 27, 2020  PRA order.
                                                                                order: His

second issue as to the weight             states,. generally, that the protected party, Ms.
                       weight of evidence states,                                       Ms

Solo M* on, "fabricated evidence,
Solomon,                evidehce,.1ied
                                  lied urtder
                                       under oath, and manipulated the facts."
                                                                       facts:" Concise
                                                                               Coheise

Statement at
          at 118.-
               8. His third issue claims that video.
                                              video and electronic mail eNgdence
                                                                        evidence presented

at trial was inadequately authenticated.
                          authenticated.'

        Appellant's position
        Appellant's                 forth.in
                    position as set forth in his third issue is .that some`eAdence.should
                                                                      some evidence should not

have been
     been admitted because it lacked proper authentication..However,
                                     proper authentication. However, ;tliis
                                                                      this third issue
                                                                                 issue

iniplicates
implicates the first two as well
                            well because the allegedly improperly admitte&evidence
                                                                  admitted evidence is
                                                                                    is

among the evidence this
among                         considered.for
                   this Court considered for its sufficiency and weight. There€ore,
                                                                         Therefore, the

issue of whether video and electronic
issne                      electronic.mail.evidence
                                      mail evidence was adequately authenticated will be
                                                                                      be

addressed first.

        Auth ent ication. of
        Authentication    of.Evidence
                             Evidence

        Appellant argues that this Court ermd.
        Appellant                        erred when it.         videwsand
                                                    it admitted video  and email

         that was not adequately
evidence that         adequately authenticated.
                                 authenticated. "All
                                                "Al] relevant evidence is admissible,

except as otherwise
except    otheilvise provided
                     provided by law."
                                 law. Pa.R.E. 402.
                                              4o2.*The.
                                                   The admissibility of evidence is i.Nrithin
                                                                                    within

          discretion: ofthe
the sound discretion               couit, which
                         the trial court, which* in
                                                 must consider the relevance and probative

TheThe. testimony
         testimony:and
                    and facts as recounted in this Opinion
                                                     Opinion. are based on audio recording and notes of the trial
and sentencing pnweedings..
                  proceedings
12 At
n      the December
   At the   Dec.mber 29,
                      29, 2023  trial, Appellant's trial
                           2021 rial,              trial counsel
                                                         counsel objected to the admission of all exhibits
                                                                                                  exhibits on the
                                                                                                              the
basis of lack of authentication.
                  authentication
131t
 Itis is unclear what Appellant'means
                       Appellant means by  by "video
                                              video evidence" since the only'exhihits
                                                                         only exhibits admitted were copies of
emails,
emails, photographs
           photographs attached toto. the emails,
                                          emails ;and
                                                  and. an Instagram post. No.video
                                                                          No video or audio recordings were
presenteTat.
presented at trial.
             trial

                                                 .Page fi of 1s*
                                                  Page6of15
value of
      ofsuch
         such -eN deuce against
               evidence          its prejudicial effeet.
                        against'its              effect. Commonwealth
                                                         CamThonwealth u..
                                                                       vu. Gonzalez,
                                                                           Gonzale, 09
                                                                                     109

A.3d      726 (Pa.
A.3d 711, 726      Super. Ct. 2or5)
              (Pa. Super..    2o15) (citation omitted), Atrial
                                    (citation omitted). A trial court's rulings on

admissibility.will     be.overturned
admissibility will not be                     showing of abuse of
                          overturned absent aashowing          of discretion. Id.
                                                                  discretion. Id.

      As defined by
                 by the Pennsylvanla Rules *of
                        Pennsylvania Rules     Evidence: ""digital
                                            of Evidence:   digital evidence" includes

"em.0s,
"emails, text messages,
              messages, social media postings, and images.`
                        socialmedia                                 to_Pa.R.E.
                                                   images." Comment to         go1(b),.
                                                                       Pa.R.E. 901(b)

Digital
Digital evidence is subjeci.to
                    subject to authentication before it
                                                     it is admissible, that is, "the

proponent
proponent must
          must.produce
               produce evidence sufficient to
                       evidence sufficient    support.aa finding
                                           to support    finding tbat the. :item
                                                                 that the         is what
                                                                            item -is       the
                                                                                     Arhat the

proponent elaims its
proponent claims     is." Pa.R.E.
                 it is,"  Pa. R. E. 901(a),
                                    9oi(a). In order to link digital evidence with.
                                                                              with aaperson or

entity; the
entity,     proponent must
        the proponent must:offer either direct
                           offer either direct evidence
                                               evidence *(e.g., testimony from
                                                         (e.g., testimony      an
                                                                          from an

individual i
           \nth personal knovdedge}
           with
           ,             knowledge) or circumstantial evidence. Such evidence may

include. "Proof
include            ownership,. possession, control, or .access
         "proof of ownership,                           access'to
                                                               to a'de"rice
                                                                  a device or account at the

relevant'tim.e'vd-len
relevant                           circuinsiances .indicating
         time when corroborated by circumstances               authorship:' Pa.R.E.
                                                   iiidicating authorship." Pa.R..E.

goi(b)(i1)(B)(ii).. However, although
901(b)(11)((i).                        proof of
                             althougli proof    "ownership, possession,
                                             of "ownership;             control ;or access"
                                                            possession, control,

is probative                    other evidence
   probative when combined with other evid en* ceof
                                                 of the          idehtity;'this
                                                    the author's identity, this alone is not

               authentication. Comment to Pa.R:E.
sufficient for authentication.                    gor(b).:Other
                                          Pa.K.E. 901(b).       eNrideni eof identity
                                                          Other evidence

includes identifying  characteristies, content, or substance.that,
         identifying -characteristics,             substance that,'when. taken together
                                                                   when tal,-en together with

all     drwrastan6es,. links an alleged author to the evidence.
al! the circumstances,                                evidence.. M,
                                                                 Id. The relative anonymity:
                                                                                  anonymity

of emails
   eanails or text messages does not mean.
              Text messages          mean they   are.inherently
                                           they :are            unreliable,.not
                                                     inherently unreliable,     anymore
                                                                            not any more so

than are written                                           Commonwea ih v. Kaeh,
         wr=itten documents which can be forged or copied. Commomwealth          3*
                                                                           Koch, 39

A.3d
A.3d 996,      (Pa. Super.
          1003 (Pa.
     996,1003       Super. Ct. 2011),
                               2011).,   affd by an equally divided court;
                                         affd                       curt, 1o6
                                                                           106 A.3d'705
                                                                               A.3d 705 (Pa.
                                                                                        (Pa

2014). Finally ;a
2014). Finally,   proponent of digital evidence
                a proponent                     need only offer sufficient
                                       evidence.need            sufficient evidence to
                                                                                    to

            finding that a
support the finding
support                               person was
                           particular.person
                         a particular                aufhot; it is not necessary
                                             was the author;           necessary to
                                                                                 to prove
                                                                                    prove

that:            could.possibly
that no one else could possibly be the author
                                       author. Comment to
                                                       to. Pa. R.E. 9o1.
                                                           Pa.R.E.  901

                                           Page 70f
                                           Page 7of 15
      During the:December
      During the December 2g, 2o21 trial,.the:
                          2g; 2022              Commonwealth. presented seven exhibits.
                                   trial, the Commonwealth

Exhibits 1,
         1, 2, and.
               and `33 were presented         CP-26..-MD-0000006-2027 .(683-
                            presented at case CP-26-MD-0000005-2021    (681 W DA 2622).
                                                                             WDA 2022).

Exhibits   and( 22 were
Exhibits 11and     were. copies
                          copies of an email
                                       email: that Ms.         testified sbe
                                                   Ms. Solomon testified she received from
                                                                                      from the

same email address Appellant          to ' communicate with her while they Nvere
                   Appellant had used to                                   were still

together. Exhibit
together. Exhibit:33 was a.photograph
                         a photograph that Ms.
                                           Ms. Solomon testified was attached
                                                                     attached to that

email message
      message and which she identified.as              of her leaving-her
                            identified as aaphotograph of     leaving her house.

.Exhibits
 Exhibits 44and s6.-,vere presented at.
                   were presented   at case CP=2:6-MD- 000000.C -2021 (680
                                            CP-26-MD-0000006-2021     (68o WDA 2022).
                                                                               2022)

Exhibit
Exhibit 44was
          was aacopy
                copy of
                     of,an. email from
                        an email  from the
                                       the same email address
                                           same email              Ms..S61onion
                                                      address that Ms.          had
                                                                       Solomon had

testified belonged
          belonged to the Appellant,
                          Appellant, and Exhibit`6
                                         Exhibit 5 was a
                                                       a photograph that,,
                                                                    that, again, she

testified.
testified was attached to that
                          that message,.this      showing her buckling the son
                               message, this time showing                  son. she shared

with Appellant                 her driveway. Exhibit 66was presented
     Appellant into the car in her                         presented, at case
                                                                         ease.CP-26-WI
                                                                              CP 226-MD--

   0432- 262 0.(676
0000432-2020
000                     2022). This exhibit was aacopy of
               (676 WDA 2022).                         of. an
                                                           an. Tnstagram
                                                               Instagram post.
                                                                         post that Ms.
                                                                                   Ms.

Solomon testified
Solomon               pasted from
        testified was posted         account with a
                             from an account        u.sername she
                                                  a username  she knew-
                                                                  knew to
                                                                        to belong
                                                                           belong to
                                                                                  to the
                                                                                     the

Appellant aid which had
Appellant and       had aa,profile
                           profile picture
                                   picture of Appellant. Exhibit
                                                         Exhibit' 77was
                                                                    was presented at case

CP=26-MD-og00472-2020 (682
CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682 WDA 2022). This exhibit was a
                                                       a copy of an email that

Ms. Solomon testified
Ms. Solomon           she received
            testified she          from.the
                          received from          email address
                                        the same email address as the other emails
                                                                  the other emails at
                                                                                   at

Exhibits 1-5. She
         1-5. She. also testified that the :
                                           Appellant typically
                                                     typically used his:mobile'phane,
                                                                    his mobile phone, not aa

desktop computer
desktop          (which re*
        computer (which     mained in laer
                        remained      her house)
                                           house),;to access social media. This testirriony
                                                                                testimony

offeret proof that
offered proof that Appellant
                   Appellant had           of,'possession
                             had ownership of, possession of, control of, or access to
                                                                                    to the
                                                                                       the

email and '
email     lnstagrani
          Instagram accounts.
                     accounts. However,
                               However, this
                                        this was not the
                                             was not     extent of
                                                     the extent of the evidence the
                                                                   the evidence the

Commonwealth presented                                             content,of
             presented for authentication; more compelling was the content of the

emails and histagrarri post, each of
           Instagram .post,       ofwhich
                                     which referred to events and circumstances involving
                                                    to events

Appellant     Ms, Solomon.
Appellant and Ms. Salomon.

                                         Page 8of
                                         Page S. of 1¢
                                                    15
      Exhibits'! and 2:2 included
      Exhibits 1 and     inclu ded .statements
                                    statements such
                                               such as
                                                    as "You think what
                                                       "You think what T
                                                                       I pointed
                                                                         pointed at.
                                                                                 at you
                                                                                     you was
                                                                                         was

bad, wait
bad, wait until you see.what
                you see what I'm capable of
                                         of. now,"
                                             now, "Your
                                                   Your paper won't help you," and
                                                                               an "You
                                                                                   "You

think the
think the army
          army taught
               taught me to be stupid?" Ms.
                                        Ms..Solomon
                                            Solomon testified that Appellant had been

in the army
in the                               referring to
                         message was referring
       army and that the message               to an incident in
                                                  an incident    July 2020,
                                                              in July 2o•% when the
                                                                                the

Appellant
Appellant .had pointed
               pointed a
                       a gun at -her:and
                                 her and their son.

       Exhibit 4included
       Exhibit 4 included the statement;
                              statement: "my girlfri end and I.fully
                                         "My girlfriend      I fully intend
                                                                     intend to take
                                                                               take Sterling

.and raise him s0*
and raise          he. has a
               so he       agood
                             good chance at:a•future:"
                                         at a future." The email specifically mentioned the

couple's son,
couple's son, and
              and the final PFA order had awarded temporary custody of the child to Ms.

Soloinon.
Solomon.
       Exhibit
       Exhibit 66included aapicture. ofms.
                            picture of Ms. Solomon with some text stating:
                                                                  stating: "If anyone

sees*this
sees      cunt feel
     this cunt feel free to.
                         to snake
                             make every shot count." Again,..Ms.
                                                     Again, Ms. Solomon testified that

Appellant
Appellant had .pointed
               pointed aagun
                         gun.atlier.
                              at her.

               7 included statements
       Exhibit 7          staten*its -such as
                                           as "Someone needs to.
                                                             to ruin your life
                                                                          lifelike
                                                                               like you're

ruining my son'gs
ruining my sori's.life," " I'll show you
                  life," "I'll       you.what aa.PFA
                                                PFA is.        about,"≥and
                                                     is really about," and ""Go
                                                                             Go;ahead
                                                                                ahead:and
                                                                                      and keep

running-your mouth I'll let.
running your mouth           Sterling watch:"
                        let Sterling  watch." Here
                                              Here again is
                                                         is a
                                                            a direct mention of the couple's

 son as well as of the PFA order
                           order. :

        This.Court
        This Court.considered.Ms..
                   considered Ms. Solomon's testimony and identifying characteristics

 such as
 such    names or
      as names or photos
                  photos.associated-with the communications
                         associated with the comrnunicatians but
                                                             but'also considered'the.
                                                                 also considered  the

 specific
 specific content of the
                     the. digital evidence presented. Here, the*
                                                            the combination of direct and

 circumstantial evidence ivas
                         was enough to authenticate the evidence as
                                                                 as. what the:
                                                                          the

 Commonwealth claimed into
                      it to be: contact
                                contact made
                                        made by Appellani
                                                Appellant with MS.-
                                                               Ms. Solomon.

        The. discussion
        The  discussion of tbe'two
                           the two remaining issues -- sufficiency of the evidence and

 weight
 weight of the evidence --presumes
           the evidence  -presumes the digital evidence was adequately authenticated and

 properly admitted:
 properly admitted

                                          Page*g*.of 35
      Sufficiency
                of
      Sufficiency    Evidence
                  of Evidence

      Appellant argues
      Appellant argues in his.
                          his first*issue.
                               first issue that evidence presented at trial was insufficient

to find
   find that he was guilty
        that he     guilty of violating the
                                        the.PFA order..
                                            PFA order.     Evidence is insufficient as
                                                           Evidence is              as'a
                                                                                       a matter

of law
of law when
       when the.evidence offered to
            the evidence offered to support
                                    support the
                                            the verdict is in
                                                verdict is    coritradiction to
                                                           in contradiction  to the
                                                                                the physical

facts, or in
facts, or in contravention
             contravention. to
                            to human experience and
                               human experience and the      of .nature.
                                                    the laws of  nature. Commonwealth V,
                                                                                      v

Wide»ier,
Widemer, 744 A.2d 745, 751
                       75 1 ((Pa.
                              Pa. 2000)
                                  20o0) (citing
                                        (citing    Cam7i7onwealth
                                                   Commonwealth v:v. Santana, 333
                                                                              333 A.2d
                                                                                  A.2d

876, 878
876,     (Pa. 1975)). The Pennsylvania.
     878 (Pa..1975))..The               Supreme Court
                          Pennsylvania Supreme  Court.has
                                                       bas'held
                                                           held.that
                                                                that "[ e]vidence will
                                                                     "[evidence   will be

deemed suffeient
deemed sufficient to support the verdict
                     support the verdictwhen
                                         when it  establishes each -material element of the
                                              it. establishes

      charged acid
crime charged      the commission thereof by
              an the                      by the
                                             the accused, :beyond aareasonable doubt."

       751. The
Id. at 751.     fact-
                    finder-may
            The fact-finder     resolve any
                            nay resolve     doubts regarding
                                        any doubts regarding aadefendant's
                                                               defendant's guilt
                                                                           guilt "unless
                                                                                 "unless

the evidence is    weal: and inconclusive
             is so weak      inconclusive that as aamatter of law no probability of fact

inq
may be drawn from the            circumstances" Corhmonwealth
                  the. combined .circumstances.' Commonwealth v. Fortson,165*A.8d
                                                                 Fortson, 165 A.3d

10,
10,*14
    14 (Pa.. Super. Ct. 2017).
       (Pa. Super       2017):

       The Commonwealth
       The Co mmonwealthimust
                         must prove      elements :for
                              prove four elements  for aacharge of indirect criminal

          1) the PFA
contempt: (
contempt:()the       order was
                 PA order  was sufficiently
                               sufficiently definite, clear,
                                                      clear,. and
                                                              and specific
                                                                  specific sa       le av e no
                                                                           so as to leave

doubt*as
doubt as to what conduct was prohibited; (z) the accused
                                         (2) the accused.had
                                                         had notice.of the order;
                                                             notice of the order; ((3)
                                                                                    3) the
                                                                                       the

act constituting
act constituting the
                 the violation
                     violation must
                               must have
                                    have been. of the
                                         been of                own, volition; and
                                                  the accused's own            and. (4)
                                                                                    (a) the

accused acted
accused acted with
              with wrongful
                   wrongful intent.
                            intent. Commonwealth z,.
                                                 v. Brumbaugh, 932 A; 2d id
                                                                   A.2d     8, 110
                                                                         108,

(Pa. Super.
(Pa. Super. Ct.
            Ct..20o7}.
                2007)

       -On                                                              the:final
       On the Commonwealth's motion, this Court took judicial notice of the final PFA

order at
order at the
         the start of
                   of December
                      December 29, -2o21                    that the
                                           trial, including that
                                    202-I.irial,                 the order was effective.July
                                                                           was .
                                                                               effective July

         through July
27, 2020 through July 27,
                      27, 2022; that the Appellant
                                that the           personally lead
                                         Appellant personally had appeared,

               at the
unrepresented, at
unrepresented,        filial hearing;
                  the final  hearing; that the order
                                      that the order protected
                                                     protected Ms. Solomon;. and
                                                               Ms. Solomon;  and that
                                                                                 that the
                                                                                      the

 provisions           Appellant was not to
 provisions were that Appellant         to ""abuse,
                                             abuse, harass;
                                                    harass, stalk, or threaten" Ms.
                                                                                MS

                                          Pate 10
                                          Page    of 1
                                               o of  x"i
Solonion,.he
Solomon,  he was evicted fron-i`her
                         from her residence, he.
                                             he tnras
                                                 was pi ohibited from
                                                      prohibited from. having any contact

•%pith Ms. Solomon, either directly
with                       directly or indirectly, and that temporary,custody of the

couple'.s child was
couple's        was. with Ms. Solomon
                              Solomon.

         There is little doubt that these provisions
                                          provisions were definite, clear,
                                                                    clear:, and specific, and, as

Appellant
Appellant was present
              present at the final hearing,.he
                                   hearing, he had notice.
                                                   notice of the provisions
                                                                 proyisions and the

duration of the.
            the order. Furthermore, the content of the messages Ms. Solomon received,

as
'as   presented. by.the
      presented by  the Commonwealth, included statements
                                               statements. of such a personal,. direct,
                                                                   a personal,  direct:
                                                                                      ,and

derogatory nature that they could not have been accidental nor inadvertent.. Finally,
                                                           or inadvertent    Finally; since

the Appellant
    Appellant wa's
              was present
                   present at the final-hearing
                                  final hearing and knew its provisions, he did
                                                                            did- act with

wrongful int6ht. when be
wrongful intent       he undertook prohibited actions..
                                   prohibited actions.

                          presented. evidence of direct and intentional contact made
         The Commonwealth presented                                              ade via

.email..and
email and indirect
            indirect contact made via Instagram
                                      lnstagram post
                                                post- on four
                                                         foul of the seven
                                                                     seven. cases.«
                                                                            cases.l4.This
                                                                                     This

intentional contact alone would be sufficient.
                                   sufficient to violate the no contact.
                                                                contact provision of the

PFA. However, the communications also included.threats
FA. However,                          included threats of harm, either direct          or
                                                                                       or.

implied, which violated
implied,       violated the provision
                            provision that Appellant was
                                                     was not to threaten Ms.
                                                                         Ms. Solomon.
                                                                             SoloiMon.

The eiridence presented
The evidence
-             presented- on these.four
                            these four cases was sufficient to establish beyond
                                                                         beyond aa

reasonable doubt that
                 that Appellant:              violate ' at least one
                      Appellant did willfully violate            one. provision of the PFA
                                                                                       PA

order, as it prohibited him.
                        him from any contact with her and from threatening her.

          Two of the cases tried on December
                                    Decernber 29, 2021 were transferred from Washington
                                                  2021

County, Pennsylvania.
County, Pennsylvania. 15 Ms. Solomon
                             Solomon testified that she moved to that county
                                                                      comity on March..1,.
                                                                                March 1,

2021., and that she afterward
2021,               afterward. received private Facebook messages from an account that

Appellant had
Appellant     used while they
          had used       they were still together. The account had the same profile

14 CP-26-MD-0oa0oo5-2021
4CP-26-MD   0000005-2021 (681
                          (681 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-0000006-2021
                                          CP-26-MD-00006o6=2021 ((68068o WDA 2022), CP-26-MD
                                                                             2022);:CP-26-MD-
0000432-2020 (676
0000432-2020  (66 WDA            CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682
                  WDA 2022); and CP-26-MD-0000472-2020                2022)
                                                           (68 WDA 2022)
•5 CF-26-MD-440-2021(678
4(P-26-MD-440-2021                   CP-26-MD-441 =2021 (677
                     (678 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-441-2021  06.77 ti1'DA
                                                              WDA 2022)

                                           Page: li:of
                                           Page  n of 15
photo of Appellant
         Appellant as was on the Instagram profile
                                           profile she knew to belong
                                                               belong to him. She

accessed the
accessed the.inessages
             messages on  her mobile
                       on her mobile phone
                                     phone during
                                           during her testimony and
                                                  her testimony and.read them aloud:l
                                                                    read them aloud.66

She.also'testified
She  also testified that the messages were in a
                                              a single thread,*not
                                                       thread, not individual messages, and
                                                                   individual messages,

that
that they
     they were       April. 2o,
          were dated April  20 22021
                                2o2i and May 4,2
                                         May 4,  02-1. The
                                                2021.  The'messages
                                                           messages included
                                                                    included statements

such
such as
     as "You ruined my life so
                            so 'I.fully
                                I fully intend to end yours,"
                                                      yours;" "When
                                                              "When IIget Sterling for good,
                                                                      get Sterling     good,

.you'll
you'll see who
           ivlio gets the last laugh,"
                               laugh," "If there's one thing the Army        me,- it -is to make
                                                                 Army taught me,

           count," "FYI
every shot count," FYI it's aafree country
                                   country: an8
                                            and I      colne wherever .
                                                I can ,come           IZ. want. You.    your
                                                                                You and your

cops can't help
           help you:"
                you."

        .11'Is.
         Ms. Solomon's credible testimonial
                                testimonial evidence as. to
                                            evidence as  to the source and
                                                                       and content
                                                                           content of the
                                                                                      the

messages was sufficient to.establish
                        to establish beyond
                                     beyond aareasonable doubt that
                                                               that Appellant
                                                                    Appellant did

willfully
willfully violate
          violate at least one
                  at least one provision
                               provision of
                                         of the:PFA order as
                                            the PFA order as it prohibited him
                                                             it prohibited him from any
                                                                               from any

contact with her and from threatening her.

         The only case that did.not         email:or
                            did not involve email or social media evidence was an incident

that occurred January
              Janua ry *28,      17Ms. Solomon testified that she was returning
                            2021.7
                        2S;2021.                                      returning home in

her vehicle between 1o:oo a.m.
                          a. m. and. lo::30:a.m. when she..saw
                                an 1o:30                       Appellant in his car,
                                                      she saw Appellant         car, dxiVing
                                                                                     driving

toward
toward her on the
       her on the street iyhere her
                  street where  her House was located.
                                    house was located. She
                                                       She attempted
                                                           attempted to
                                                                     to follow him while
                                                                        follow him while

she called
she called police, but she
           police, but she was
                           was unable
                               unable to keep him
                                      to keep him .in
                                                   in sight
                                                      sight for
                                                            for very long as
                                                                very long as he*was
                                                                             he was

traveling at aahigh rate of speed.
                            speed. Upon:
                                   Upon returning to her street.,
                                                         street, she waited for a
                                                                                a police
                                                                                  police

officer to arrive -before approaching her house.
                                          house, Wh en. she did so, she saw that her mail,
                                                 When                                mail;

which typically was delivered between 9:30
                                      9:so a.m.
                                           a. fn. and lo: oo.a:m.,
                                                      1o:oo  a.m., had been taken out of

her nlailbox -and
her mailbox   and one
                  one piece
                      piece of
                            of mail
                               mail was
                                    was torn.open:
                                        torn open: an
                                                   an envelope containing FBI
                                                      envelope containing FBI

background clearances that she needed for. employment'. In addition, her front'i.vindow
                                      for employment.                    front window

•
(, .Hard
   Hurd copies of the
                  the messages were.no.t transferYed..avcr
                               were not transferred        with;the
                                                     over with      case. files fron7•washington'
                                                                the case        from Washington Count)
                                                                                                  County,.
"CP-26-MD -96 =2021 (679
€P-26-MD-96-2021    (679 WDA 2022)
                             2.022)

                                                    Page i2:of
                                                         2of15 15
was cracked, and the'locks
                 the locks were broken off.8
                                       off.ls Ms.
                                              Ms. Solomon testified that,based
                                                                    that, based on
                                                                                on

AppelIant's
Appellant's address as it was listed on custody papers, he did not live on that street, nor,

to her knowledge,:did
       knowledge, did any of his friends. or family live on the street. This court found Ms.
                                 friends or

Solomon's testimony to
                    to:be              the: circumstantial evidence sufficient to
                       be credible and the                                     to. find

Appellant guilty beyond aareasonable doubt
                                     doubt of violating at least one
                                                                 dne*pro•rision
                                                                     provision of the-PFA
                                                                                  the PFA

order as it
         it prohibited him from being at Ms. Solomon's house and from stalking,
                                                                      stalking,.

harassing, or tlireatening..her.
              threatening her.

        The*evidence
        The evidence presented at all seven cases was
                                                  was sufficientfor
                                                       sufficient for conviction. The

pr irisions.of
provisions  of the*
               the PEA
                    PA were unmistakably clear, particularly the provision ordering that'
                                                                 provision ordering that

Appellant:not
Appellant not have.
              have any contact with
                               with Ms.
                                    Ms. Solomon..
                                        Solomon. Appellant was.
                                                           was present at the final
                                                                              final.

hearing, and
         aiid therefore.he
              therefore he had notice of the
                                         the. PFA and its provisions.:As
                                                          provisions. As there .was adequate

authentication tliat
               that the emails and messages that Ms.
                                                 Ms. Solomon received
                                                             received .had been sent by

Appellant and theycontained
              they contained specific statements directed toward her, there is no doubt -

                              own.volition.
they were sent of Appellant's own  volition. Finally, knoNiring
                                                      knowing the provisions
                                                                  provisions`of     PFA.as
                                                                             of the PFA as

                  clearly acted with wrongful intent when undertook prohibited actions.
he did, Appellant clearly                                                      a&ion .

The'eviden6e
The          presented'neither
    evidence presented neither contradicted physical facts nor contravened human
                                                                           hurnan

           and . the laws of nature, and i
experience and                           itiisufficiently supported
                                                          supported. conviction on all charges.
                                                                                       charges

        Weight
        Weight of the Evidence
                      Evidence
       Appellant argues in his second issue that this..Court's verdict.was
                                                 this Court's verdict was against
                                                                           against the

weight of Elie eN idence. An appeal on
          the evidence.             on. the
                                        the weight of evidence can succeed
                                                                   succeed only
                                                                           only.by
                                                                                by showing'
                                                                                   showing

that the:      court "`acted
     the trial court  "acted capriciously or palpably
                                             palpably abused its discretion." Choma
                                                                              Chornu V,
                                                                                     v. IYer,
                                                                                        ler,
S*i A.2d 238,
871A.2d  2 3°x. 243
                243 (Pa.              oo5) (citation.
                    (Pa. Super. Ct. 2oo5)             oni.itted). The remedy of a
                                           (citation omitted).                  a verdict

 Ms. Solomon clarified that all
Ms.
Is                          al' the.:Mndows
                                the windows in.her house%had
                                             [ her house had been installed incorrectly so that the locking
                                                                                                tie locking
mechanisms were outside instead ofof inside.
                                     inside.

                                              Page 13 of.
                                                      of 15
against
against the weight of
        the weight of evidence.
                      evidence is.
                                is .aa new
                                       new trial
                                           trial "so
                                                   so that
                                                      that right
                                                           right may
                                                                 may be given another
                                                                     be given another

opportiinityto
opportunity              Thompson v. City of
            to prevail." 'Thompson        ofPhiladelphia,  x}93 A.2d 669,
                                             Philadelphia, 493       6.6 9, 672
                                                                            672 (Pa. x985).
                                                                                (Pa. 1985).

In
Inaajury
    juryArial,   [t]lie decision
         trial, "[t]he           of whether
                        decision of wlaether to grant
                                                grant a new trial
                                                      a new trial based upon aaclaim
                                                                  based upon   claim that the
                                                                                     that the

verdict is against the weight
verdict is:agains#-the        of the
                       weight of the evidence
                                     evidence rests
                                              rests. with
                                                     with the
                                                          the trial
                                                              trial court."
                                                                    court." Choma,
                                                                            Choma, * 871
                                                                                     871 A.2d
                                                                                         A.2d

   243, "A challenge.io
at 243."Achallenge   to the weight    the.evidence
                            weight of the evidence is directed to the discretion of the trial:
                                                                                        trial

judge, who
judge, who heard
           heard the sane evidence
                 the same evidence and who possesses
                                   and who possesses only narrow authority
                                                     only narrow authority to upset a
                                                                           to upset a

Juryverdict."  Commonwealth v.
jury verdict." Commonwealth    Sanchez, 36
                            v. Sanchez, 36.A.3d 24, 39
                                           A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2.oii) (internal
                                                       (a. 2011)             citation.
                                                                   (internal citation

.0 mitted). In ajury
omitted).
  .                  trial, if aajury reaches
               ajury trial,           reaches. aaverdict that
                                                         that "shoclzs
                                                              "shacks one's sense .
                                                                                  .
                                                                                  of justice,
                                                                                     justice," a
                                                                                            11.a

trial.
trial judge:lids.
       judge has some authority to grant
                      authority to grant;relief,
                                          relief, Id.
                                                  Id,

       However, because an accused does not have     right to a
                                            have the right    a. jury
                                                                 jury`trial
                                                                      trial on aacharge
                                                                                 charge of

indirect          contempt, in such proceedings,
indirect criminal contempt,         proceedings, the judge is the
                                                 the judge    the finder    fact, the one
                                                                  finder of fact,

that- ""exclusively
that    exclusively weighs the evidence,
                    weighs the evidence, assesses
                                         assesses the
                                                  the credibility
                                                      credibility of
                                                                  of witnesses,
                                                                     witnesses., and may
                                                                                 and may

choose to
choose to beliove ail, part,
          believe all,       or none.of
                       part, or none of the evidence." 23
                                        the evidence." 23 Pa.CS.A.
                                                          Pa.C.S.A. §8 6114(b)(3);
                                                                       6114(10(3); Sanchez,
                                                                                   Sanchez ;

36 A,3d at
36A.3   at- 39.
            39. The credibility of
                The credibility of a
                                   awitness
                                     witness includes
                                             includes questions
                                                      questions of
                                                                of inconsistent
                                                                   inconsistent testi..mbny
                                                                                testimony

             motives. Id.
and improper motives.

       Heave, Appellant
       Here,            argues specifically
              Appellant argues specifically that
                                            that "[ ₹
                                                    jhe alleged
                                                 "[the  alleged victim of the Protection
                                                                victim of

froin
from Abuse Order
           Order- fabricated evidence, lied
                                       led under oath, and manipulated the.facts'in
                                                                       the fcts
                                                                             a in

order to
order to violate
         violate Appellant;"
                 Appellant," and that this:
                             and that       Court's verdict
                                      this Court's          was so
                                                    verdict was    contrary to
                                                                so contrary to the evidence
                                                                               the evidence

as to
   to *shock one's*sense
       shock one's sense of justice. Appellant's         Statement at
                                     Appellant's Concise Staterrient at 118-g.
                                                                        8 9.

                   challenge. this Court's assessment of the credibility
      These claims challenge                                 credibility of
                                                                         of `Ms..
                                                                             Ms. Solomon's

testimony as well as
testimony         as the weight of the evidence presented.
                                                presented. This Court considered both.
                                                                                 both the

                 and Ms. Solomon's
digital.evidence and     Solomon's.testimony     gave appropriate
                                   testimony and gave             weight to each,
                                                      appropriate weight    each.

Despite
Despite Appellant's
        Appellant's claim.
                    claim that
                           that Ms.         lied under
                                    Salomon lied
                                Ms. Solomon      under oath, her testimony simply was
                                                             her testimolly'siinply was

not so
    so inconsistent or obviously deceptive as would support such aa.claim.. As.discussed,
                                                                    claim. As  discussed,

                                          Tage;14 Of 15
                                          Page 14 of
     the emaiis
         emails and social media messages admitted into evidence were adequately
                                                                      adequately

                    and.there
     authenticated, an  there is nothing in
                                         in the record to.show
                                                       to show any
                                                               any of the evidence was

     fabricat6d or that
     fabricated    that.false
                        false. ,
                               testimony was given..
                                             given. The Commonwealth was
                                                                     was. the only party to
                                                                              only party

     offer evidence; the defense did
                                 did.not
                                     not call witnesses or present
                                                           present any contradictory evidence
                                                                   any contradictory

     for consideration.
         consideration,*The guilty. verdicts
                        The guilty  verdicts here wei•e
                                                  were not against the weight    evidence, and
                                                                       weight of evidence,

     they were not.capricious                           5llock one's
               not capricious or unfounded, nor do they shock  tine's sense of justice
                                                                               justice.

                                             CONCLUSION

               The .verdicts
               The  verdicts rendered.in
                             rendered in the above-captioned matters were based on sufficient

     evidence to show Appellant intentionally violated at least one provision
                                                                    provision of the.PFA order..
                                                                                 the PFA order

     They also were based
                    based. on
                           on*a,carefizl
                              a careful consideration of the
                                                         the.weight
                                                             weight of.
                                                                    of the evidence to prove
                                                                                       prove the.
                                                                                             the

     .violations
     violations and on digital evidence that had been adequately authenticated. This.
                                                                                This Court

     respectfully requests that the judgments be AFFIRMED.
                                                 AFFIRMED:

                                                       BY THE COURT:

     ATTEST;
                                                   N,C_
     ATTEST:
                                                  <66.EC..-
                                                       Linda
                                                       Linda R.
                                                                •Z_
                                                                  ,
                                                                Cordaro,.Judge
                                                             R. Cordaro, Judge
     Cleric of Co

     August       20 .
                     22-
               1, 2022

c
           -
           0

           +
                   U
                  A4
                  Lo
           r      co=»
Un
te
          -
          a.

-...-.' ' 2±..
          ¢

          83
                  . 0o
                  eo
                  -.. ,_,u4..

          -
          <      aeaAce
                    i
                 le
         e          t.<                       Page 18
                                              Page 1,5d   8
                                                      of 15