Com. v. Blum, S. ( 2023 )

J-S24040-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN MICHAEL BLUM :
:
Appellant : No. 1607 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal
Division at No(s): CP-49-MD-0000500-2022
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023
Sean Blum appeals from the October 26, 2022 judgment of sentence of
6 months’ imprisonment and a $300 fine and court costs imposed after he was
found guilty of indirect criminal contempt1 of a Protection From Abuse (“PFA”)
order. For the following reasons, we deem the issue Appellant attempts to
raise herein to be waived and affirm his judgment of sentence.2
The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are not relevant
to our disposition and need not be reiterated here. On appeal, Appellant
purports to challenge whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).
2 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief in this matter.
J-S24040-23
evidence to sustain his conviction for indirect criminal contempt of the PFA
order. See Appellant’s brief at 9-10.
Our standard of review in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence is as follows:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, is sufficient to prove every element of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an
appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder. Any question of doubt is for 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. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 670 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 4 A.3d 1054 (Pa. 2010).
A court may hold a defendant in indirect criminal contempt and punish
him in accordance with the law where the police have filed charges of indirect
criminal contempt against the defendant for violating a PFA order issued
pursuant to the domestic relations code. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a).
A charge of indirect criminal contempt consists of a
claim that a violation of an order or decree of court
occurred outside the presence of the court. Where a
PFA order is involved, an indirect criminal contempt
charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of
the protective order.
....
To establish indirect criminal contempt, it must be
shown that 1) the order was sufficiently clear to the
-2-
J-S24040-23
contemnor as to leave no doubt of the conduct
prohibited; 2) the contemnor had notice of the order;
3) the act must have been one prohibited by the
order; and 4) the intent of the contemnor in
committing the act must have been wrongful.
Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994, 996-997 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 897 A.2d
454 (Pa. 2006).
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s sufficiency challenge,
however, we must determine whether he has properly preserved it for our
review. In his Rule 1925(b) concise statement, Appellant alleged: “The
evidence introduce [sic] at an indirect criminal contempt hearing was
insufficient to prove [A]ppellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt.” See
“Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),”
12/5/22, at ¶ 1. The trial court found that Appellant waived his sufficiency
claim by failing to specify the element or elements of indirect criminal
contempt that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt. See trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 1/11/23 at 1. We agree with
this assessment.
In Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal
denied, 250 A.3d 1158 (Pa. 2021), a panel of this Court held that:
[w]e have repeatedly held that [i]n order to preserve
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
appeal, an appellant’s [Rule] 1925(b) statement must
state with specificity the element or elements upon
which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient. ... Therefore, when an appellant’s
-3-
J-S24040-23
1925(b) statement fails to specify the element or
elements upon which the evidence was insufficient[,]
... the sufficiency issue is waived on appeal.
Id. at 496 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we concur that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement fails to
articulate the elements of indirect criminal contempt of a PFA order for which
he believes the evidence had been insufficient. Accordingly, we agree with
the trial court that Appellant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence.3
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/01/2023
____________________________________________
3 In any event, even if Appellant had properly preserved his sufficiency claim
on appeal, we would find it warrants no relief. Our independent review of the
record reveals that there was ample evidence presented during the October
26, 2022 contempt hearing to establish that Appellant repeatedly texted the
victim, E.S., in early August 2022, in violation of a July 13, 2022 final PFA
order. See notes of testimony, 10/26/22 at 7-11, 14-17, 20-22.
-4-