J-A22013-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CHRISTOPHER J. STUHL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
VIVIAN W. STUHL
Appellant No. 1906 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Civil Division at No(s): 13-21562
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 17, 2015
Appellant, Vivian W. Stuhl (“Wife”), appeals pro se from the order
granting Appellee, Christopher J. Stuhl’s (“Husband”), request for relief
pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Act (“PFA”). After careful review, we
affirm.
As we write primarily for the parties, we set forth only so much of the
factual and procedural history as is necessary for our discussion. Husband
filed for a temporary PFA order on September 9, 2013, alleging that Wife
had punched, slapped, and choked him the previous evening. Furthermore,
Husband alleged that Wife had threatened to stab him to death. After two
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A22013-14
continuances, Wife filed a counter-petition for PFA relief against Husband,
and Husband filed an additional petition seeking a PFA order on behalf of the
parties’ children against Wife.
The PFA court held a hearing for a final PFA order on September 24,
2013. Both parties were represented by counsel at the hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the PFA court granted Husband a final PFA order
against Wife, but denied the petitions filed on behalf of the parties’ children,
as well as Wife’s petition seeking a PFA order against Husband. Wife filed
this timely appeal pro se.
On appeal, Wife contends that the PFA court erred in excluding the
testimony of witnesses that she had desired to call. See Appellant’s Brief, at
2. The PFA court notes that a review of the transcript does not reveal that
Wife ever requested the opportunity to present the testimony of anyone
other than herself. After an independent review of the transcript, we
conclude that the PFA court is correct. At the close of the cross-examination
of Wife, the transcript reads as follows.
[Husband’s counsel:] That’s all I have your Honor.
[Wife’s counsel:] Nothing further.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel in the retiring room.
(Whereupon, the Judge and counsel left for the retiring room for
an off-the-record discussion.)
(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)
-2-
J-A22013-14
N.T., PFA Hearing, 9/24/13, at 58. A review of the rest of the transcript
does not reveal any request by Wife to present the testimony of any other
witness. Since the PFA court does not indicate that it made any such ruling,
and the record does not reveal any instance where the PFA court denied a
request to call another witness, we conclude that Wife’s sole issue on appeal
is meritless. See Pa.R.A.P., Rule 302(a).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/17/2015
-3-