J-S36029-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ROBERT VERLANE STEAVENS :
:
Appellant : No. 436 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 5, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-MD-0000147-2022
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 2, 2022
Appellant, Robert Verlane Steavens, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas,
following his bench trial conviction for indirect criminal contempt (“ICC”)
based on Appellant’s violation of a protection from abuse (“PFA”) order.1 We
affirm.
The trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural
history of this case as follows:
On November 16, 2020, a [PFA] Order was issued by this
[c]ourt against Appellant. Pursuant to the Order, Appellant
was prohibited from having any contact with his ex-wife,
[Victim].
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).
J-S36029-22
An [ICC] Complaint was filed against Appellant on February
11, 2022, alleging that Appellant had a third party contact
[Victim] in July of 2021. The Complaint alleged that
Appellant previously violated the [PFA] eight times. A
hearing on the [ICC] of the [PFA] Order was scheduled for
February 22, 2022. The hearing was continued until April
5, 2022, at the request of the Commonwealth.
A hearing regarding the [ICC] was held on April 5, 2022.
At the hearing, Thomas Harr testified that he was
approached by Appellant in Westmoreland County Prison
before being sent to SCI Fayette. Appellant asked Mr. Harr
if he wanted a pen pal. Mr. Harr called [Victim] and wrote
a letter to her the following week when he was transferred
to SCI Fayette, as he was told that [Victim] enjoyed having
pen pals. The individual who approached Mr. Harr had blue
hair and a Mohawk at the time, although Mr. Harr did not
get a good look at the individual since [the person was]
speaking to him from outside of his cell. Mr. Harr initially
could not recall who approached him but later testified that
the individual was Appellant. Mr. Harr found [Victim’s]
name and phone number written on the bunk of his bed
before he was approached about contacting her.
[Victim] testified that she received a phone call from prison
in July 2021 and received the letter two weeks later from a
man named Tom. [Victim] did not know anybody in prison
at that time except for Appellant. Appellant has [Victim’s]
phone number and address. She has seen Appellant
previously with blue hair styled in a Mohawk. [Victim]
testified that she received a card from Appellant the day
before the hearing.
Detective Nicholas Caesar, a detective for Westmoreland
County, investigated the letter and phone call after [Victim]
reported a PFA violation. Detective Caesar determined that
the letter was sent from SCI Fayette and the phone call
came from the Westmoreland County Prison. His
investigation determined that Mr. Harr and Appellant were
incarcerated at the same time and would have had contact
with each other.
Appellant testified that he was incarcerated in July of 2021
-2-
J-S36029-22
in the Westmoreland County Prison. At the time of the
hearing, Appellant had multiple PFA violations and he
received discovery from the District Attorney regarding
another case which included [Victim’s] personal
information. Appellant admitted he violated the PFA at least
nineteen times previously but was adamant that he did not
direct Mr. Harr to contact [Victim]. Appellant acknowledged
that he previously had blue hair that he wore in a Mohawk
style. Appellant believes that Detective Caesar gave Mr.
Harr the information relating to [Victim] because he was
already investigating Appellant for another matter.
This [c]ourt found Appellant guilty and he was sentenced to
three to six months’ incarceration at the Westmoreland
County Prison. …
(Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/10/22, at unnumbered pp. 1-3) (internal citations
omitted). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on April 20, 2022. The
court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
Did the [c]ourt err in finding that sufficient evidence was
presented to find Appellant guilty of [ICC] when the
Commonwealth’s main witness repeatedly offered
contradictory testimony that was insufficient to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
Appellant argues that Mr. Harr’s testimony was so contradictory that it
should not have been relied upon in determining that the Commonwealth
satisfied its burden of proof. Appellant asserts that Mr. Harr failed to initially
identify Appellant and only changed his testimony after reading a statement
that lacked identifying details. Appellant claims Mr. Harr initially denied
-3-
J-S36029-22
having seen the individual who provided Victim’s contact information and only
identified Appellant to Detective Caesar after the detective showed Mr. Harr a
picture of Appellant. Appellant states: “Put simply, Mr. Harr’s testimony was
so problematic as to warrant it being rejected altogether.” (Id. at 10).
Appellant suggests that someone other than Appellant could have accessed
Appellant’s discovery containing Victim’s information and supplied Victim’s
contact information to Mr. Harr. Appellant concludes the Commonwealth
presented insufficient evidence to convict him of ICC, and this Court must
reverse his conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence. We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the distinction between a claim
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and a claim challenging the weight
of the evidence is critical. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 318,
744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000).
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, if
granted, would preclude retrial under the double jeopardy
provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, whereas a claim challenging the weight of the
evidence if granted would permit a second trial.
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes each material
element of the crime charged and the commission thereof
by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the
evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to
the physical facts, in contravention to human experience
and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as
a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim the
court is required to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the
-4-
J-S36029-22
benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence.
A motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there
is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Thus, the trial
court is under no obligation to view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner. An allegation that the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to
the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be
granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or
because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at
a different conclusion. A trial judge must do more than
reassess the credibility of the witnesses and allege that he
would not have assented to the verdict if he were a juror.
Trial judges, in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror.
Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that
notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of
greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal
weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
Id. at 319-20, 744 A.2d at 751-52 (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa.Super.
2003) (explaining sufficiency of evidence review does not include assessment
of credibility, which is more properly characterized as challenge to weight of
evidence).
Instantly, Appellant’s issue as presented on appeal is more properly
characterized as a weight challenge, where Appellant is essentially arguing
that the court should have rejected Mr. Harr’s testimony as incredible and
found Appellant’s testimony more credible than those of the Commonwealth’s
witnesses. See id. Appellant, however, failed to raise any objection to the
weight of the evidence in the trial court. Therefore, Appellant’s claim is
-5-
J-S36029-22
waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) (stating that defendant must raise weight
claim with trial judge in first instance). See also Commonwealth v. Cox,
231 A.3d 1011, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2020) (stating weight challenge must be
preserved either in post-sentence motion, written motion before sentencing,
or orally prior to sentencing; appellant’s failure to avail himself of any of
prescribed methods for presenting weight issue to trial court constitutes
waiver of that claim).
Even if we could construe Appellant’s claim as a proper challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, it would not merit any relief. In reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is as
follows:
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency
claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the
benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
verdict when it establishes each material element of the
crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused,
beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the
Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical
certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be
resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of
fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that
the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a
crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where
the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence.
Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that
of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced,
-6-
J-S36029-22
accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s
crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s
convictions will be upheld.
Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super.
2013)).
The PFA Act permits a court to hold an individual subject to a protection
order in contempt of such order and to punish the defendant in accordance
with the law. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a). To establish ICC, the
Commonwealth must prove: (1) the order was sufficiently definite, clear, and
specific to the contemnor as to leave no doubt of the conduct prohibited; (2)
the contemnor had notice of the order; (3) the act constituting the violation
must have been volitional; and (4) the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.
Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa.Super. 2012).
Here, Appellant admitted that he was aware of the PFA order prohibiting
him from contacting Victim. In finding that Appellant violated the PFA order,
the trial court explained:
Appellant argued that he had no contact with Mr. Harr and
that Mr. Harr was directed to contact [Victim] by a
disgruntled inmate who was trying to get Appellant in
trouble. The [c]ourt was not persuaded by this argument,
as there was sufficient evidence presented to conclude that
Appellant directed Mr. Harr to contact [Victim]. Appellant
had [Victim’s] personal information and was the only inmate
[Victim] knew at the time she received the phone call from
the Westmoreland County Prison. Mr. Harr was able to
identify Appellant by his recognizable hair color and style.
Detective Caesar concluded in his investigation that
-7-
J-S36029-22
Appellant and Mr. Harr were incarcerated in the
Westmoreland County Prison at the same time and would
have interacted. Additionally, Appellant admitted to
violating the PFA nineteen times previously and was still
sending [Victim] mail even after he was charged with [ICC].
* * *
There was sufficient evidence presented to establish that
Appellant directed a third-party, Mr. Harr, to contact
[Victim] in violation of the PFA Order. This contact had no
purpose other than to harass [Victim]. …
(Trial Court Opinion at unnumbered pp. 3-4) (internal citations omitted).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner,
the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s ICC conviction. See
Sebolka, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/02/2022
-8-