Com. v. Phillips, J.

J-S08009-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JOHN PHILLIPS, :
:
Appellant : No. 853 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 21, 2014,
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division at No. MC-51-MD-0000283-2014
BEFORE: DONOHUE, WECHT and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015
John Phillips (“Phillips”) appeals from the February 21, 2014 judgment
of sentence entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
following a finding of direct criminal contempt for Phillips’ failure to appear
for trial. Upon review, we affirm.
The record reflects that on February 21, 2014, Phillips appeared before
the trial court for a contempt hearing based upon allegations that he failed
to appear for a separate criminal trial on December 20, 2013. N.T.,
2/21/14, at 2. The trial court began the proceeding by reading into the
record entries from the quarter sessions file, which indicated “prior FTA from
6/24/13 until 7/24/2013. FTA beginning 12/20/13 and retro [c]ontempt.”
Id. Counsel for Phillips objected to this information on hearsay grounds.
Id. The trial court overruled the objection. Id. The Commonwealth
J-S08009-15
presented no testimony or other evidence. See id. at 2-4. After Phillips
was unable to present evidence to explain his absence during the reported
timeframe, the trial court found him in contempt and sentenced him to ten
to twenty days of incarceration, with immediate parole after ten days. Id.
at 4.
Phillips filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal, as ordered by the trial court. He raises
one issue for our review: “Did not the lower court err in admitting the
criminal docket, which constituted hearsay, where not even the physical
document was produced in court, and the information the court deemed
relevant to the hearing was simply read into the record from a computer
screen?” Phillips’ Brief at 3.
We review challenges to the admissibility of evidence according to the
following standard:
Admission of evidence is a matter within the
sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be
reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly
abused its discretion. Not merely an error in
judgment, an abuse of discretion occurs when the
law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment
exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the
evidence on record.
Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 235 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
-2-
J-S08009-15
In its written opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(a), the trial court states that the issue Phillip raises on
appeal is waived, as he failed to raise it in a pretrial motion or make a timely
objection to the admission of the evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 8/1/14, at
4. As our recitation of the facts above reveals, this is incorrect, as counsel
for Phillips lodged a timely and specific objection on hearsay grounds to the
trial court’s reliance on the quarter sessions record, thus preserving the
issue for appeal. See N.T., 2/21/14, at 2; see also Akbar, 91 A.3d at 235(“to preserve a claim of error for appellate review, a party must make a
specific objection to the alleged error before the trial court in a timely
fashion and at the appropriate stage of the proceedings”).
Nonetheless, we find no abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.
Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 340 n.10 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“We may affirm the
trial court on any legal basis supported by the record.”). Pennsylvania Rule
of Evidence 201(b) states that a court may take judicial notice of “a fact that
is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within
the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
Pa.R.E. 201(b). This Court has previously found that “[a] court may
properly take judicial notice of uncontested notations in the court record.”
Commonwealth v. Byrd, 472 A.2d 1141, 1145 (Pa. Super. 1984); see
-3-
J-S08009-15
also Hawkey v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 425 A.2d 40, 42 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1981) (“A court may take judicial notice of its own records.”).
Although Phillips objected, on hearsay grounds, to the quarter sessions
record, he did not contest the accuracy of the relevant docket entries, i.e.,
he did not claim that he was in fact present for court on December 20, 2013.
See N.T., 2/21/14, at 2-3. Therefore, the trial court could properly rely
upon the uncontested docket entries, which revealed that Phillips failed to
appear for trial on December 20, 2013. See id. at 2; Byrd, 472 A.2d at
1145.
As Phillips does not raise any additional issues regarding his conviction
of direct criminal contempt, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/18/2015
-4-