J-S51020-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT C. ROWE
Appellant No. 1981 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000187-1989
CP-38-CR-0000783-1989
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015
Robert C. Rowe appeals pro se from the order entered on October 22,
2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, finding him in
contempt for non-payment of restitution, and ordering him to a term of two
months’ imprisonment, with the purge condition that he pay $300.00, and
requiring him to pay $100.00 per month thereafter.1, 2
Rowe, formerly an
____________________________________________
1
“[Rowe] immediately paid the $300.00 purge amount and was released
from custody.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2013, at 8.
2
While Rowe’s appellate brief does not conform to the Rules of Appellate
Procedure in numerous ways, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),
(a)(4), (a)(5)(a)(11) and (a)(12), we will refrain from quashing the instant
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Despite the brief’s inadequacies, the defects
are not so substantial as to preclude us from understanding the issue Rowe
raises and conducting meaningful appellate review.
J-S51020-14
attorney, contends he should not be required to pay restitution because the
Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security (PLFCS) has already
compensated the client-victims. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The trial court has aptly detailed the facts and procedural history of
this case, dating back to 1989, and, therefore, we need not restate the
background of this case here. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2013, at 1–8.
At issue in this appeal is the court’s contempt order. At the outset, we
state our standard of review:
A trial court’s finding of contempt will not be disturbed absent
an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an
error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication
of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality,
as shown by the evidence of record.
Commonwealth v. Griffiths, 15 A.3d 73, 76–77 (Pa. 2010) (citations
omitted).
Here, Rowe is challenging the trial court’s contempt order, contending
he should not be obligated to pay restitution. In effect, Rowe’s claim is
directed to the restitution orders that underlie the contempt order,
specifically, the court’s order of November 16, 2001, ordering Rowe to pay
restitution to PLFCS, and the court’s order of May 10, 2012, denying Rowe’s
motion challenging the legality of the restitution sentence, and ordering
Rowe to continue to make restitution payments.
This Court previously found that Rowe’s August 24, 2010, challenge to
the court’s November 16, 2001 restitution order was untimely. See
-2-
J-S51020-14
Commonwealth v. Rowe, supra, 31 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. June 21, 2011)
(unpublished memorandum). Furthermore, Rowe’s appeal from the trial
court’s May 10, 2012, order, finding the restitution order valid and
enforceable, was dismissed by this Court, and Rowe did not seek further
review by this Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See
Commonwealth v. Rowe, supra, 81 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. May 14, 2013)
(unpublished memorandum). As Rowe’s ability to challenge these orders
has been waived, no relief is due.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court finding Rowe in
contempt for failure to pay restitution.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2015
-3-