J-A34037-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
T. A. H. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
W. A. H., III
Appellant No. 663 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered February 12, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-190
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JANUARY 04, 2016
W.A.H., III (“Husband”) appeals from a final Protection From Abuse
(“PFA”)1 order prohibiting him from contacting his wife, T.A.H. (“Wife”) for
three years. We affirm.
On January 14, 2015, Wife filed a PFA petition seeking protection from
Husband. The trial court entered a temporary PFA order restraining
Husband from abusing, harassing or contacting Wife or their children
pending an evidentiary hearing.
On February 12, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Wife’s petition.
The following evidence was adduced. Husband and Wife were married for
almost sixteen years and had three children. N.T., 2/12/15, at 9. Wife is
____________________________________________
1
See Protection From Abuse Act (“PFA Act”), 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101 et seq.
J-A34037-15
employed as a school bus driver. Id. at 19-20. On December 3, 2014, Wife
separated from Husband. Id. at 10. Husband lost his job in 2011 and went
to prison at an unspecified point after December 3, 2014. Id. at 19, 56.
During their marriage, Husband repeatedly forced Wife to engage in
sexual intercourse and other sexual acts against her will. N.T., 2/12/15, at
17-18. During the last two or three years of their marriage, almost every
time Husband tried to initiate sexual contact, Wife told Husband no and told
him not to touch her, but she eventually gave in because their children were
outside the door or close by. Id. Husband also regularly groped Wife,
smacked her across the bottom and grabbed her breasts almost daily in the
presence of their children or third persons despite her repeated objections.
Id. at 19, 42.
During their marriage, Husband was controlling and domineering, and
he often became enraged and smashed Wife’s or their childrens’ personal
items such as laptops, Kindles and other items. N.T., 2/12/15, at 11-12. He
threw items at Wife, such as cans and boxes of cereal on one occasion when
he could not find an item in the pantry. Id. at 16. He also threw potatoes
and rutabagas at Wife because she asked him to peel them a certain way.
Id. at 16, 34.
On the day that Wife separated from Husband and left with their
children, Husband was “yelling and screaming” at Wife, kicked in the kitchen
cabinets, and ripped Wife’s phone out of her hand and smashed it on the
kitchen counter. N.T., 2/12/15, at 10.
-2-
J-A34037-15
After their separation, Husband repeatedly attempted to contact Wife
or learn her location by using other persons’ Facebook accounts to send her
messages, driving to her workplace to speak with her boss, and using their
oldest daughter’s phone to ascertain Wife’s location. N.T., 2/12/15, at 19,
42. He also attempted to get into Wife’s school bus to speak with her and to
try to force her to return home. Id. at 20. Even after filing her PFA petition,
Wife continued to express fear and concern that Husband would continue to
“push the line” and let her know he knew where she was and what she was
doing. Id. at 23.
Husband became increasingly unruly during the evidentiary hearing.
See, e.g., N.T., 2/12/15, at 56-63 (Husband’s angry 8-page speech to court
during direct testimony), 69-72 (Husband’s closing argument). When the
court granted Wife’s petition and directed that the protective order will
remain in place for three years, Husband slammed the table and repeatedly
exclaimed “deplorable” and “absolutely deplorable”. Id. at 75-76.
On February 25, 2015, the trial court received papers from the
Superior Court that apparently constituted Husband’s attempt to appeal the
final PFA order. The trial court directed Husband to file a notice of appeal in
the trial court on or before March 16, 2015. On March 11, 2015, Husband
filed a six page document in the trial court entitled “Appeal Motions”. We
will construe this document as a timely notice of appeal.
The trial court ordered Husband to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
In response, Husband filed a four page, handwritten document filled with
-3-
J-A34037-15
paragraphs of vituperative commentary on the conduct of Wife and the trial
court. On May 5, 2015, the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. In
this Court, Husband has filed a lengthy handwritten brief again filled with
vituperative and unintelligible commentary.
We agree with the trial court that Husband has waived all issues on
appeal due to the “voluminous and predominantly unintelligible” nature of
his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d
306, 309 (Pa.1998) (“any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived”); Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 911
(Pa.Super.2002) (“[a] Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the
court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
Concise Statement at all … [e]ven if the trial court correctly guesses the
issues Appellant raises on appeal and writes an opinion pursuant to that
supposition, the issue is still waived”).
Even if Husband preserved his issues for appeal, we see no error or
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. The PFA Act prohibits family
or household members from intentionally causing indecent assault against
another family or household member. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a)(1). Indecent
assault is “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person
for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person.” 18
Pa.C.S. § 3101. The trial court held that Husband committed indecent
assault by repeatedly groping Wife’s breasts, smacking her bottom and
-4-
J-A34037-15
forcing her to have sexual intercourse against her will. We agree with the
trial court’s reasoning.
In addition, the PFA Act prohibits “knowingly engaging in a course of
conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including
following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which
place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.” 23 Pa.C.S. §
6102(a)(5). The trial court correctly held that Husband violated this
provision by regularly smashing or destroying household items, throwing
items at Wife, groping Wife in front of their children, and repeatedly
attempting to contact Wife after their separation.
Order affirmed. Husband’s applications for relief are denied with
prejudice in their totality.2
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/4/2016
____________________________________________
2
Husband filed multiple applications for relief during this appeal, portions of
which we denied with prejudice and portions of which we denied without
prejudice. To make today’s decision final, all portions of the applications
that we previously denied without prejudice are now denied with prejudice.
-5-