Com. v. Levenberg, F. ( 2015 )

J-S63024-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FRANK LEVENBERG
Appellant No. 553 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0028366-2014
MC-51-CR-0034551-2014
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 27, 2015
Appellant, Frank Levenberg, appeals from the January 6, 2015
aggregate judgment of sentence of one-year probation, imposed after he
was found guilty of two counts of indirect criminal contempt for violation of a
Protection from Abuse (PFA) order.1 After careful review, we affirm.
We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history of this case
as follows. On May 2, 2014, a PFA order was entered against Appellant,
prohibiting him from having any contact, direct or indirect, with Leana Older,
his former girlfriend. On July 5, 2014, Older was awoken by a text message
from her sister, stating that Appellant had threatened to kill her. N.T.,
1/6/15, at 11. She then heard noises outside her front door and saw
____________________________________________
1
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).
J-S63024-15
Appellant standing outside of her house in front of his car. Older then
observed Appellant get into his car and drive off. Id. at 12. Approximately
one minute later, Appellant returned to the house. Id. Older fled the
house, was picked up by her sister, and was driven to the police station to
report the incident. Id.
On September 10, 2014, Older and her daughter were stopped at a
red traffic light when Appellant was at a nearby McDonalds drive-thru
window. Id. at 16. Older had her windows down, and Appellant made
threatening comments towards her. Id. After the red light turned green,
Older proceeded to a nearby Wawa, approximately half a block away, but
Appellant followed her and stopped his vehicle in a bus lane in front of the
Wawa. Id. at 17. Appellant began to argue with Older and her daughter.
Id. After one to two minutes, Appellant got back into his car and drove off.
Id. at 19-20. Older then called the police and reported the incident. Id. at
19.
On January 6, 2015, Appellant proceeded to a one-day bench trial, at
the conclusion of which Appellant was found guilty of two counts of indirect
criminal contempt stemming from the incidents on July 5, 2014 and
September 10, 2014.2 The trial court immediately imposed a sentence of six
____________________________________________
2
The trial court points out that the Commonwealth also charged Appellant
with one count each of stalking and harassment, but these charges were
dismissed for lack of evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 4/6/15, at 2 n.1.
-2-
J-S63024-15
months’ probation on each charge, to run consecutively to each other.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. On February 3, 2015,
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.3
On appeal, Appellant presents the following three issues for our
review.
A. Was the evidence insufficient to support the
guilty verdicts because it was inherently
contradictory and unreliable such that the
guilty verdicts must be reversed as constituting
a violation of due process of law?
B. Was the verdict against the greater weight of
the evidence where … [A]ppellant’s proffered
evidence firmly establishes his alibi for the July
5, 2014 incident, and where the September
10, 2014 incident was primarily initiated by …
[A]ppellant’s … daughter, and was the result of
a chance meeting in public rather than any
wrongful intent on the part of … [A]ppellant?
C. Did the trial court err in imposing a sanction of
criminal contempt which “should not be used
when a lesser means would suffice,”
Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174,
1177 (Pa. Super. 2005)[, appeal denied, 887
A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005)], where the record does
not reflect that the trial court at any point
considered whether lesser means would suffice
to address the alleged violation of the
temporary order at issue in this matter?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
____________________________________________
3
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-3-
J-S63024-15
Appellant’s first issue involves his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence against him. We begin by noting our well-settled standard of
review. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether
the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the
verdict winner, support the [finder of fact] verdict beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation
omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400(2015). “The Commonwealth can meet its burden by wholly circumstantial
evidence and 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.” Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super.
2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal
denied, 95 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2014). As an appellate court, we must review “the
entire record … and all evidence actually received[.]” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “[T]he trier of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced is free to
believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). “Because
evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo
and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d
-4-
J-S63024-15
119, 126 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Diamond v.
Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 145 (2014).
Instantly, Appellant was convicted of indirect criminal contempt. “To
establish indirect criminal contempt, 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 must have acted with wrongful intent.” Commonwealth v.
Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient for his conviction
stemming from the July 5, 2014 incident because “Appellant presented two
witnesses who firmly established his alibi[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 19.
Additionally, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient for his
conviction stemming from the September 10, 2014 incident because under
Haigh, the violation was not made with wrongful intent and was de minimis.
Id. at 22. We will address each argument in turn.
In this case, Older testified that she personally saw Appellant outside
of her home in the early morning hours of July 5, 2014. N.T., 1/6/15, at 12.
Older also recognized Appellant’s black 1999 Chevrolet Suburban, which she
herself had driven multiple times in the past. Id. at 13. Further, Older
testified that Appellant drove around the block once and stopped back in
-5-
J-S63024-15
front of her house a second time, at which point she left via the back door,
got picked up by her sister, and went to the police. Id. at 13.
Our Supreme Court has held that for sufficiency purposes the
testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 1165 (Pa. 2012);
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 373 A.2d 1051, 1054 (Pa. 1977). Although
the trial court found Appellant’s alibi witness credible, the trial court also
noted that said witness acknowledged “she wasn’t with [Appellant] the entire
evening.” N.T., 1/6/15, at 64. The trial court noted that Appellant admitted
that Older’s home is only “a couple minutes away” from the pub where
Appellant alleged he was. Id. at 65. As the factfinder, the trial court was
“free to believe all, part or none of” Appellant’s alibi witness’s testimony.
Watley, supra. Based on these considerations, we conclude the
Commonwealth did present sufficient evidence to support the indirect
criminal contempt conviction for the July 5, 2014 incident.
As to the September 10, 2014 incident, relying on this Court’s decision
in Haigh, Appellant avers that the Commonwealth failed to establish
wrongful intent. In Haigh, the appellant, while subject to a PFA order,
spoke to the victim in a courtroom into which he was brought as a prisoner
for a PFA violation hearing. Haigh, supra at 1177. We concluded that the
Commonwealth failed to show wrongful intent based on the following.
A reasonable person could have believed, and
Appellant did believe, that the PFA order was relaxed
-6-
J-S63024-15
to some extent in the courtroom context, especially
where Appellant was shackled and the victim was
protected by an armed deputy sheriff. Appellant did
not believe that he was threatening Mrs. Haigh, and
neither she nor any one else in the courtroom heard
Appellant threaten her or otherwise make any
threatening movements or gestures towards her.
Appellant’s questions arose from his concern for the
health of his wife of thirty-one years, even though
they were estranged at the time. After a thorough
review of the record, we conclude, based upon all of
the circumstances, that Appellant did not act with
wrongful intent by engaging in this conversation with
his wife in the courtroom.
Id.We conclude that this case is legally distinguishable from Haigh.
Here, Appellant found himself in the same location as Older when he had
just finished going through a McDonalds drive-thru. However, Appellant
then affirmatively followed Older to the Wawa and began to shout at Older
and her daughter. N.T., 1/6/15, at 28-29. We cannot say that Appellant’s
intentional choice was de minimis as it occurred outside a courtroom setting
and was the product of circumstances within Appellant’s control. As a result,
the Commonwealth did show sufficient evidence of wrongful intent in this
case. Walsh, supra. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his
first issue.
Appellant’s avers in his second issue that the trial court’s verdict was
against the greater weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 25.
However, before we may address this claim, we must consider the
-7-
J-S63024-15
Commonwealth’s argument that Appellant has waived this issue for lack of
preservation in the trial court. See generally Commonwealth’s Brief at 14.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607 discusses claims
pertaining to the weight of the evidence and provides, in relevant part, as
follows.
Rule 607. Challenges to the Weight of the
Evidence
(A) A claim that the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in
a motion for a new trial:
(1) orally, on the record, at any time before
sentencing;
(2) by written motion at any time before
sentencing; or
(3) in a post-sentence motion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating, “[i]ssues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal[]”). Our Supreme Court has explained that preserving a weight of
the evidence claim in the trial court is important because the failure to do so
“deprive[s the trial] court of an opportunity to exercise discretion on the
question of whether to grant a new trial.” Commonwealth v. Sherwood,
982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, Sherwood
v. Pennsylvania, 559 U.S. 1111 (2010).
In this case, Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
Additionally, we have reviewed the record and Appellant did not raise this
-8-
J-S63024-15
issue at any time during the proceedings in the trial court. Instead,
Appellant raised this issue for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
As a result, we conclude Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim is waived
for want of preservation. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d
478, 490-491 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concluding weight claim was waived when
raised for the first time in Rule 1925(b) statement even though “the trial
court reviewed the substance of his weight of the evidence claim in its Rule
1925(a) opinion[]”).
In his third issue, Appellant avers that the trial court erred when it
sentenced him to consecutive probationary terms. Specifically, Appellant
claims that the trial court did not give an adequate explanation for its
sentence, and did not consider lesser alternatives under Haigh. Appellant’s
Brief at 27. Although Appellant claims this issue does not pertain to the
discretionary aspects of his sentence, we agree with the Commonwealth that
it does. See Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818, 826 (Pa. Super.
2008) (discussing claim that the trial court failed to state adequate reasons
for its sentence on the record as a claim pertaining to the discretionary
aspects of his sentence), appeal denied, 968 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2009). It is
axiomatic that in this Commonwealth, “[t]here is no absolute right to appeal
when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence.” Commonwealth
v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 666 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). When an
appellant forwards an argument pertaining to the discretionary aspects of
-9-
J-S63024-15
the sentence, this Court considers such an argument to be a petition for
permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247,
1265 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 104
A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “[A]n [a]ppeal is permitted only after this Court
determines that there is a substantial question that the sentence was not
appropriate under the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83
A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of sentencing
issue, this Court is required to conduct a four-part analysis to determine
whether a petition for permission to appeal should be granted.
Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1039 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). Specifically, we
must determine the following.
(1) [W]hether appellant has filed a timely notice of
appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 903; (2) whether the issue
was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion
to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P.
[720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal
defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
substantial question that the sentence appealed from
is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
[Pa.C.S.A.] § 9781(b).
Id.
In the case sub judice, we note that Appellant has failed to include a
Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief, and the Commonwealth has noted its
- 10 -
J-S63024-15
objection in its brief. Commonwealth’s Brief at 18. “If a defendant fails to
include an issue in his Rule 2119(f) statement, and the Commonwealth
objects, then … this Court may not review the claim.” Commonwealth v.
Karns, 50 A.3d 158, 166 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 65 A.3d 413(Pa. 2013). As the Commonwealth has lodged its objection, we deny
Appellant’s petition for permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. See Trinidad, supra.Based on the foregoing, we conclude all of Appellant’s issues on appeal
are either waived or devoid of merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s January 6,
2015 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/27/2015
- 11 -