J-S77028-16
NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID ALPHONSE GOAD
Appellant No. 255 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 55 -CR- 0000147 -2011
CP- 55 -CR- 0000413 -2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2016
Appellant, David Alphonse Goad, appeals from the order entered on
November 2, 2015. We vacate and remand.
The factual background and procedural history of this case is as
follows. On November 24, 2014, Appellant was ordered to pay costs, fees,
and restitution stemming from two convictions for retail theft. Appellant
failed to make the required payments and, therefore, a contempt hearing
was held on March 24, 2015. At that hearing, Appellant agreed to a
payment plan. Appellant failed to comply with the payment plan's terms.
Thus, a second contempt hearing was held on October 30, 2015.
At the October 30, 2015 hearing, one witness testified, however,
Appellant was not permitted to cross -examine the witness. See N.T.,
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
J-S77028-16
10/30/15, at 7 -9. On November 2, 2015, the trial court found Appellant in
civil contempt and ordered him imprisoned until he purged the contempt, or
for a maximum period of 15 days to 6 months.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. This Court remanded
this case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant wished to be
represented by his court -appointed counsel or if he wished to proceed pro
se. Appellant chose to be represented by counsel, who filed a brief on his
behalf.
Appellant presents one issue for our review:
Did error occur where Appellant was not given the opportunity to
offer a defense?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
After Appellant filed his brief, the parties filed a joint application
seeking remand for a new contempt hearing. We agree with the parties that
Appellant is entitled to a new contempt hearing. In order to comply with the
United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process
during a civil contempt hearing, a defendant must have a full and fair
opportunity to cross -examine any witnesses offered against him or her. See
Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'/ Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 77 (Pa. Super. 2016).
As noted above, in this case Appellant was not provided the opportunity to
cross -examine the lone witness offered against him. Thus, we conclude that
Appellant's constitutional right to due process was violated. Accordingly, we
-2
J-S77028-16
vacate the order finding Appellant in contempt and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this Judgment Order.
Application to remand granted. Order vacated. Case remanded.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
/
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 11/8/2016
-3