J-S32019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MARIE J. LEE
Appellant No. 2375 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 1, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-MD-0000690-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2016
Appellant, Marie J. Lee, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 45
to 90 days’ incarceration, imposed by the trial court after it convicted
Appellant of contempt1 for failure to appear at a bench warrant hearing.2
After careful review, we reverse.
On July 1, 2015, Appellant appeared in Philadelphia Municipal Court,
where she was found to be in criminal contempt for failing to appear at a
bench warrant hearing on June 12, 2015. She was sentenced to 45 to 90
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4132(2).
2
This is a direct appeal from the Philadelphia Municipal Court pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 1123(a.1).
J-S32019-16
days’ incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to vacate
sentence, which was denied on July 15, 2015. Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal on July 30, 2015.3
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
Was not the evidence insufficient to support the lower
court’s finding of criminal contempt where the
Commonwealth presented no evidence on the record that
[A]ppellant (1) failed to abide by a specific and definite
order, (2) had notice of the court order, and (3) acted with
wrongful intent?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant was convicted under the Judicial Code, the relevant portion
of which provides as follows.
§ 4132. Attachment and summary punishment
for contempts
The power of the several courts of this
Commonwealth to issue attachments and to impose
summary punishments for contempts of court shall
be restricted to the following cases:
...
(2) Disobedience or neglect by officers, parties,
jurors or witnesses of or to the lawful process of the
court.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4132(2).
____________________________________________
3
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-2-
J-S32019-16
We are mindful that “[w]hen reviewing a contempt conviction, much
reliance is given to the discretion of the trial judge. Accordingly, we are
confined to a determination of whether the facts support the trial court’s
decision.” In re C.W., 960 A.2d 458, 466 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted). “In cases of direct criminal contempt, that is, where a
contumacious act is committed in the presence of the court and disrupts the
administration of justice, an appellate court is confined to examination of the
record to determine if facts support the trial court’s decision; however, the
trial court’s discretion is not unbridled.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 532
A.2d 28, 31-32 (Pa. Super. 1987). “Further, unless the evidence establishes
an intentional disobedience or an intentional neglect of the lawful process of
the court, no contempt has been proven. Moreover, a conviction for criminal
contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re C.W., supra at
467 (citation omitted).
Here, the Commonwealth concurs with Appellant, stating, “[t]he
record contains no evidence that [Appellant] received notice of any order
requiring her presence in court on June 12, 2015. Therefore, the
Commonwealth does not oppose vacating her contempt conviction for failing
to appear on that date.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 4. Our review of the
notes of testimony supports the parties’ agreement.
At the outset, we note that the transcribed hearing consists of six
pages, with only three pages of substantive content. The Commonwealth
-3-
J-S32019-16
asked the Municipal Court “for a contempt sentence.” N.T., 7/1/15, at 3.
Appellant’s counsel responded as follows.4
(Audio not coherent) and object to the
contempt. [Appellant] did not intend to obstruct the
proceeding. (Incoherent) serious mental health
issues. She attended – Fairmount Behavior Health
Systems from the 23rd of May to the 2nd of June.
She was in their treatment center from June 2 to
June 8. I confirmed that with the (inaudible) and
also confirmed that upon her leaving on June 8th, she
enrolled in the Divine Life Shelter, at 40th and
Germantown Avenue and she has been there ever
since. She presents with a number of mental health
issues, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, post
traumatic stress from a (inaudible) where she was
the victim. She bore a child and that child passed
away in June of last year. She no money [sic] to
make bail, (inaudible) so I ask that she not be found
in contempt but I ask for SOB in this case.
Id. at 3-4. The record additionally indicates that Appellant was present, but
did not testify. See id. at 4 (Municipal Court advising Appellant that she
was being found guilty of contempt and sentencing Appellant to 45 to 90
days’ incarceration and bail of $5,000).
Based on the foregoing, we agree with Appellant and the
Commonwealth that there is no record evidence to establish Appellant’s
“intentional disobedience of the lawful process” to support Appellant’s
conviction of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. In re C.W., supra.
____________________________________________
4
In addition to the five instances referenced in Appellant’s counsel’s
commentary below, the transcript contains one additional notation of “very
poor audio,” and six more notations of “inaudible.” Id. at 2-4.
-4-
J-S32019-16
Accordingly, we reverse the July 1, 2015 judgment of sentence and order
Appellant discharged.
Judgment of sentence reversed. Appellant discharged. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/2016
-5-