J-S04010-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JASON WYMEN SEAUX,
Appellant No. 844 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 15, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-MD-0000365-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 28, 2015
Jason Wymen Seaux appeals from the judgment of sentence of six
months probation after the court found him guilty of indirect criminal
contempt. We affirm.
The victim in this matter, Heather Rakers, was a former girlfriend of
Appellant. She received a Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) order against
Appellant, and that document prohibited him from contacting her directly or
indirectly. On December 28, 2013, multiple telephone calls were placed to
her cell phone by a person using a phone with a local area code. Ms. Rakers
did not recognize the number and admitted that the caller did not speak
during several of the calls. She contacted Pennsylvania State Police, who
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04010-15
arrived shortly thereafter. While police were present, the victim received an
additional call from the same phone number. The victim placed the caller on
speaker phone. According to Ms. Rakers, she recognized the voice on the
telephone as that of Appellant and submitted that he made sexually explicit
and vulgar statements.
The trial court found Appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt
based on Ms. Rakers’ testimony. The court sentenced Appellant to six
months probation. Appellant timely appealed, and the court directed him to
file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal. Appellant complied, and the court authored its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion. The matter is now ready for this Court’s review. Appellant’s sole
issue on appeal is “was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain a
conviction of indirect criminal contempt when the Commonwealth did not
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Seaux was the individual who
contacted Ms. Rakers?” Appellant’s brief at 6.
In conducting a sufficiency of the evidence review, we view all of the
evidence admitted, even improperly admitted evidence. Commonwealth v.
Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). We consider such
evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict
winner, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the
Commonwealth. Id. When evidence exists to allow the fact-finder to
-2-
J-S04010-15
determine beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged,
the sufficiency claim will fail. Id.
The evidence “need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the
fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.”
Id. In addition, the Commonwealth can prove its case by circumstantial
evidence. Where “the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a
matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined
circumstances[,]” a defendant is entitled to relief. This Court is not
permitted “to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of
the fact-finder.” Id.
Appellant argues that the victim’s testimony that she recognized his
voice on the telephone making the calls in question was insufficient to
establish he violated the PFA. Although acknowledging that a defendant’s
identity may be established by voice, he maintains that the verdict was
based on suspicion and conjecture. Appellant contends that he had a well-
supported alibi that contradicted the identification. Appellant relies on
Commonwealth v. Derembeis, 182 A. 85 (Pa.Super. 1935), in support.
In Derembeis, the defendants were found guilty of robbery. The victim of
the robbery had been blinded as a result of an attack during the crime, but
he identified the culprits by their voices. The court did not discharge the
defendants based on insufficient evidence, but remanded for new trials. In
addition, with respect to one of the defendants, it was testified that he was
-3-
J-S04010-15
at work at the time of the commission of the crime and therefore could not
have robbed the victim.
Derembeis is inapposite. It did not involve a person intimately
familiar with the voice of the defendant nor was it a sufficiency of the
evidence case. Further, Appellant’s purported alibi was that he was in West
Palm Beach, Florida. This alibi overlooks the fact that a harassing telephone
call can be made from Florida, and cell phones with a local area code are
easily transportable to other areas of the country. Here, the victim, who had
been in an intimate relationship with Appellant, identified Appellant as the
telephone caller in question. This evidence, viewed in a light most favorable
to the Commonwealth, is sufficient to find that he violated the PFA.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/28/2015
-4-