Com. v. Copeland, J.

J-A10037-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JERMAINE JUSTIN COPELAND
Appellant No. 950 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-MD-0000737-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015
Appellant Jermaine Justin Copeland appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas following his
bench trial conviction for contempt1 for violating a final protection from
abuse order (“PFA”). We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On December 9, 2013, the court entered a PFA order against Appellant that
provided he was to have no direct or indirect contact with his ex-girlfriend,
Martha Mojica (“Victim”), or his and Victim’s daughter, Jazmine Copeland
(“Daughter”), for a period of three years. N.T., 12/9/13, p. 2. On April 12,
____________________________________________
1
23 Pa.C.S. § 6114.
J-A10037-15
2014, shortly after his release from prison for other charges, Appellant sent
a text message to Victim’s mother’s phone2 that stated:
this Jermaine. I don’t want to get in trouble but I need to
know how my daughter is doing. I been home for a little
while, over a month now. I just couldn’t take it any
longer. Please let me know something. I was told she was
minor autistic. I’m worried and I miss her.
Id. at 24.
Victim’s mother was in Florida at the time and did not respond to the
text message. Id. at 21. Appellant proceeded to call Victim’s mother on
different days, until she eventually answered the phone and spoke with
Appellant. Id. at 21-22. Appellant inquired about Daughter, and Victim’s
mother told him to communicate all inquiries with the court. Id. at 22-23.
On May 15, 2014, the court conducted a bench trial and found
Appellant guilty of contempt for violation of a PFA order. On June 5, 2014,
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On June 11, 2014, the court
ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and he timely complied on June 23,
2014.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
____________________________________________
2
Victim often used her mother’s cell phone because she did not have her
own phone, and Appellant was aware of this. Id. at 10.
-2-
J-A10037-15
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE
THE FACT-FINDER TO FIND EVERY ELEMENT OF INDIRECT
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence for his indirect criminal contempt charge. Appellant argues the
Commonwealth neglected to establish that Appellant contacted Victim or
Victim’s Daughter directly, that he threatened anyone, or that he made the
calls and texts while the PFA order was active. Appellant concludes that,
because the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence of Appellant’s
volition or his wrongful intent, the court erred by finding the elements of his
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard we apply is:
whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is
sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless
the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter
of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the
combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain
its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire
record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
received must be considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact
while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the
-3-
J-A10037-15
weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part
or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal
denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 874
A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super.2005)).
Indirect criminal contempt is found when a “violation of an Order or
Decree of court occurred outside the presence of the court.”
Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal
denied, 897 A.2d 454 (Pa.2006). “Where a PFA order is involved, an indirect
criminal contempt charge is designed to seek punishment for violation of the
protective order.” Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108, 110
(Pa.Super.2007) (quoting Id. at 996).
To establish a claim of indirect criminal contempt, the Commonwealth
must prove the following four elements:
(1) the order [in question] must be definite, clear, specific
and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the
person to whom it was addressed of the conduct
prohibited; (2) the contemnor must have had notice of the
specific order or decree; (3) the act constituting the
violation must have been volitional; and (4) the contemnor
must have acted with wrongful intent.
Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198, 1203 (Pa.Super.2003)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Baker, 722 A.2d 718, 721 (Pa.Super.1998)
(en banc), affirmed, 766 A.2d 328 (Pa.2001).
-4-
J-A10037-15
An act is volitional if it is knowingly made. Brumbaugh, 932 A2d at
110. Wrongful intent can be imputed by the substantial certainty that a
defendant would be in contact with a victim, in violation of a PFA order. Id.Here, Appellant admitted he knew the PFA order prohibited him from
contacting Victim or Victim’s Daughter, either directly or indirectly. N.T.,
5/15/14, at 33. Appellant also admitted that he wrote the text messages,
called Victim’s mother, and was fully aware that Victim did not have her own
cellphone, sometimes used her mother’s cellphone, and that he could reach
Victim through her mother. Id. at 36.
Appellant’s claim that the violation occurred before the PFA was
effective lacks foundation. Although counsel misspoke when she asked the
Victim about the text messages in “April of 2012,” N.T., 5/15/14, at 7,
Victim’s mother testified that she received a text message from Appellant on
“April 12, 2014.” Id. at 24. Further, the police report reflects that the
violation occurred in April of 2014, and Appellant admits to knowing the PFA
was in place when he communicated with Victim’s mother. Id. at 33.
Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth failed to present evidence of
his volition or wrongful intent lacks merit. To establish volition and wrongful
intent, the Commonwealth must prove only that Appellant intentionally
violated the PFA order; the substance of Appellant’s communications and
whether they were threatening or abusive is of no consequence. See
Brumbaugh, supra. Although Appellant testified that he did not intend for
-5-
J-A10037-15
Victim to read his text messages, when asked about whose phone number
he called, he accidentally said it belonged to Victim before correcting
himself. N.T., 5/15/14, at 28. Further, Victim’s mother testified that when
Appellant telephoned her, he said: “I know I’m going to get in trouble but I
wanted to see – find out how my daughter is doing and I wanted to send her
some money.” Id. at 22.
As the fact-finder, the court was free to believe all, part, or none of
the evidence presented. See Hansley, supra. After hearing all of the
testimony, the court stated: “I do believe that you knew there was a great
likelihood that this message would be received in some way by the protected
party and I am going to find you guilty.” N.T., 5/15/14, at 43.
Viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to
the verdict winner, we hold that the Commonwealth presented sufficient
evidence for the court to find every element of contempt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/10/2015
-6-