Com. v. Urbano, C.

J-S15009-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER N. URBANO :
:
Appellant : No. 569 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 22, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-63-MD-0000318-2018
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED MAY 8, 2019
Appellant, Christopher N. Urbano, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of a fine of $200 after his conviction of criminal contempt of court. 1
We affirm.
The criminal contempt conviction arises out of the failure of Appellant,
an attorney, to attend a March 8, 2018 pre-trial conference before the
Honorable Valarie Costanzo in a criminal matter in which Appellant
represented the defendant, Nicholas James Murphy. By way of background,
Appellant also previously missed a pre-trial conference on November 30, 2017
in the same matter but before a different judge, the Honorable Michael J.
Lucas. A contempt hearing was held on December 18, 2017. At the earlier
contempt hearing, the transcript of which was made part of the record in the
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S15009-19
instant case, Appellant stated that his failure to attend the November 30, 2017
pre-trial conference was a result of a miscommunication among his staff
members who neglected to file a motion for a continuance when it was learned
that Allegheny County would not release Murphy for the conference. N.T.,
12/18/17, at 3-13. Judge Lucas explained that, though this was not the “first
time this had happened,” he would not find Appellant in contempt and advised
that he hoped Appellant would “be a little more respectful of Court dates…with
the other judges who are going to have the criminal docket come the first of
the year.” Id. at 15, 20-21. Appellant informed the court that “[t]his is a
learning lesson I will not forget.” Id. at 21.
The matter involving Murphy was then assigned to Judge Costanzo, and
on January 30, 2018, following a pre-trial conference, Judge Costanzo issued
a case management order scheduling the final pre-trial conference for March
8, 2018, and setting forth other relevant dates related to the underlying case,
including the deadline for the submission of proposed voir dire questions and
the date for jury selection. Relevant to the instant proceeding, the case
management order stated: “A final Pre-Trial Conference shall be conducted
before the undersigned on Thursday, March 8 at 9:30 in Courtroom 3” and
“Defendant shall be present at the final Pre-Trial Conference. Defendant’s
failure to appear shall result in the issuance of a Bench Warrant.”2 N.T.,
____________________________________________
2 While the January 30, 2018 case management order was not made part of
the record, Judge Costanzo read out the relevant portions of the order at the
contempt hearing, and neither party contests the accuracy of the quoted
portions of the order.
-2-
J-S15009-19
3/22/18, at 11, 19. While Appellant failed to appear in court on March 8,
2018, his client, Murphy, was brought to the trial court from a correctional
facility for the pre-trial conference, and Mr. Murphy indicated to the court that
he had not spoken to Appellant for some time prior to the hearing. Id. at 3-
4, 15-16, 25-26.
At the March 22, 2018 contempt hearing, Appellant stated that he did
not personally see the January 30, 2018 case management order when it
arrived at his office but that someone else on his staff received it and placed
it in the file. Id. at 17-18, 22-23. Appellant further stated that he “saw the
deadlines” in the order, but that he did not think anything else was required
in this case, such as the submission of additional voir dire questions, prior to
jury selection. Id. at 19. Appellant attributed his failure to attend the pre-
trial conference to his having to manage too large of a caseload and attend
too many court dates as a sole practitioner. Id. at 12-15, 18. Appellant also
explained that he had hired new staff and adopted new computer case
management systems after he missed the November 30, 2017 pre-trial
conference, but that it had taken a long time to integrate the staff and fully
implement the systems. Id. at 12-15. At the hearing, the prosecutor also
stated that the earlier incident referenced by Judge Lucas at the December
18, 2017 contempt hearing related to Appellant missing a court appearance
in Allegheny County in November 2016.3 Id. at 39.
____________________________________________
3Appellant has not disputed, either at the March 22, 2018 contempt hearing
or in this appeal, that this earlier Allegheny County incident occurred.
-3-
J-S15009-19
Judge Costanzo found Appellant guilty of criminal contempt and
sentenced him to pay a fine of $200. Id. at 42; Order, 3/22/17. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal, and then filed his statement of errors
complained of on appeal, as directed by the trial court, on May 17, 2018. The
trial court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on June 12, 2018.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:
I. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support the
conviction for criminal contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. §4132(2),
insofar as the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Attorney Urbano’s failure to appear for the Pre-trial
Conference on March 8, 2018, was volitional, willful and
deliberate?
II. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support the
conviction for criminal contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. §4132(3),
insofar as the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Attorney Urbano’s failure to appear for the Pre-trial
Conference on March 8, 2018, was committed with the intent to
obstruct the proceedings?
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (suggested answers omitted).
We review a trial court’s finding of contempt for an abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Moody, 125 A.3d 1, 12 (Pa. 2015). This standard is
necessarily narrow and “empowers a trial judge with the ability to maintain
command over his or her courtroom.” In the Interest of C.W., 960 A.2d
458, 466 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). “Much weight should be given
to the trial court’s judgment in assessing the necessities of a particular
situation.” Moody, 125 A.3d at 12 (citation omitted).
-4-
J-S15009-19
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Judge Costanzo, we
conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions,
explaining that there was sufficient evidence for a finding of criminal contempt
beyond a reasonable doubt under subsections (2) and (3) of 42 Pa.C.S. §
4132.4 See Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/18, at 3-12. Accordingly, we affirm on
the basis of the trial court’s opinion. The parties are instructed to attach the
opinion of the trial court in any filings referencing this Court’s decision.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2019
____________________________________________
4 The relevant subsections of 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132 provide as follows:
The power of the several courts of this Commonwealth to issue
attachments and to impose summary punishments for contempts of
court shall be restricted to the following cases:
…
(2) Disobedience or neglect by officers, parties, jurors or
witnesses of or to the lawful process of the court.
(3) The misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court,
thereby obstructing the administration of justice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 4132(2)-(3).
-5-
Circulated 04/17/2019 04:14 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, )
)
Appellee, )
)
) No. MD-318-18 ,..._,
) �-.:�
. _,__ c:...,
CHRISTOPHER N. URBANO, )
•
\.
I
�
r:»
(_ ... . _
) ! ; q
Appellant. ) t,
t'\)
c,i .
-n
. , ....�
OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (
'
--·
-.._,,
(.)
" ,.
This matter comes before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upon the appeål
oft:Christopher N. Urbano ("Appellant") from an Order of this court dated March 22, 2018. The
Order found Appellant in criminal contempt for failing to appear for a pre-trial conference
scheduled for March 8, 2018. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 23, 2018. On April
25, 2018, this court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal within twenty-one (21) days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely filed a
Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal on May 17, 2018. For the reasons set forth
below, this court properly found Appellant in criminal contempt.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant is an attorney who represented Defendant Nicholas James Murphy in two
criminal matters at docket numbers CP-63-CR-723-2017 and CP-63-CR-2906-2017 in
Washington County, Pennsylvania. Appellant requested a jury trial with regard to these matters
on January 30, 2018 and jury selection was subsequently scheduled for March 19, 2018.
Pursuant to a Case Management Order (hereinafter "CMC)") issued by this court on January 30,
2018, Appellant was directed to appear for a pre-trial conference on March 8, 2018. After
1
Appellant failed to appear for the conference, a criminal contempt hearing was scheduled before
the court on March 22, 2018. Appellant appeared for said hearing and was represented by
Dennis
J. Popojas, Esquire, and the Commonwealth was represented by John P. Friedmann, Esquire.
Following the hearing, this court found Appellant in criminal contempt for failing to appear at
the aforementioned pre-trial conference and ordered Appellant to pay a fine of $200.
OPINION
At the outset of this discussion, the court notes: "When reviewing a contempt conviction
to determine the sufficiency of the evidence presented, the appellate court will place great
reliance on the discretion of the trial judge and is limited to a determination of whether the facts
support the trial court's finding." Himes Himes, 833 A.2d 1124, 1125 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing
Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937, 939 (Pa. Super. 2002)). The Judicial Code permits
the courts of this Commonwealth to impose sanctions for contempt in three situations, two of
which are applicable here:
(2) Disobedience or neglect by officers, parties, jurors or witnesses of or to
the lawful process of the court.
(3) The misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, thereby
obstructing the administration ofjustice.
42 Pa.C.S.A. §4132(2), (3). Sanctions for an attorney's failure to appear for scheduled court
hearings have long been considered matters of criminal contempt. Stewart v. Foxworth, 65 A.3d
468, 471 (Pa. super. 2013).
Grounds for Criminal Contempt
1. 42 Pa.C.S.
Under 42 Pa.C.S. §4132(2), the following four elements must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt for a criminal contempt conviction to be sustained:
2
(1) The [court's] order or decree 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. Kolansky, 800 A.2d at 939-940. Furthermore, the evidence must
establish "an intentional disobedience or an intentional neglect of the
lawful process of the court," [d. at 940. Wrongful intent will be found
where the actor "knows or should reasonably be aware that his conduct is
wrongful." Commonwealth v. Debose, 833 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citing McCusker v. McCusker, 631 A.2d 645, 648-649 (Pa. Super. 1993)).
However, "direct (as well as subjective) intent is not necessary where a reckless disregard
for the directions of the court can be proven." Id.This court finds the Commonwealth has proven all of the elements beyond a reasonable
doubt with regard to §4132(2). First, the court's order was definite, clear, and specific and left no
doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited.
This coun issued a CMO on January 30, 2018. (Contempt Hr' g Tr. 3, March 22, 2018.) The CMO
stated: "A final Pre-Trial Conference shall be conducted before the undersigned on Thursday,
March 8 at 9:30 in Courtroom 3." (Hr'g Tr. I l.) The CMO further provided: "Defendant shall be
present at the Final Pre-Trial Conference. Defendant's failure to appear shall result in the issuance
of a Bench Warrant." (Hr'g Tr. 19.) The court noted at the hearing that these two sentences were
"in bold" and that this portion of the CMO "jumps out" at the reader. (Hr'g Tr. 19.) -Upon review
of all the aforementioned facts, this coufi is satisfied the Commonwealth has met its burden with
regard to the first element of the offense.
Second, this court finds that the contemnor had notice of the specific order. The notation
on the CMO indicates that copies of the CMO were sent to "DA, attorney and defendant" on
January 31, 2018. (Hr'g Tr. 3.) During cross-examination by Attorney Friedmann, Appellant
acknowledged that his office received the CMO. which was then "noted on the file." (Hr' g Tr.
3
22.) Based on these facts, the court is satisfied Appellant received adequate notice of the CMO.
Third, the court finds Appellant's act constituting the violation was volitional. At the
outset of this discussion, the court notes that Appellant's testimony throughout the hearing was
unclear and digressive. Appellant initially stated that he "did not actually see" the CMO and that
he "did not read it." (Hr'g Tr. 17, 18.) However, Appellant was apparently aware of other dates
listed on the CMO, including the deadline to submit proposed voir dire questions and the
scheduled jury selection for Defendant Murphy's trial on March 19, 2018. Appellant later
testified thathe had in fact "noticed the deadline dates" on the CMO. (Hr'g Tr. 19.) He stated
that Defendant Murphy's case was "not one that there were any extra voir dire questions [he) felt
were necessary." (Hr'g Tr. 19.) Appellant further testified he was "driving" to the Washington
County Courthouse on the date ofjury selection. (Hr'g Tr. 24.)
In addition, Appellant's statements indicate he was under the impression that he was not
required to appear for the pre-trial conference because there were no pre-trial matters to discuss
in relation to Defendant Murphy's case. Regarding his failure to appear, Appellant stated that he
"thought we were already aware of the dates" and that he did not feel any extra voir dire
questions were necessary. (Hr'g Tr. 18, 19.)
Upon consideration of all the circumstances, the court finds that Appellant was aware of
the pre-trial conference and willfully failed to appear. The court gathers that Appellant knew of
the pre-trial conference since Appellant was apparently aware of other dates listed on the CMO.
including the deadline to submit voir dire questions and the date ofjury selection. Appellant also
expressed to the court that he did not realize he was required to attend the pre-trial conference
since there were no pre-trial issues to discuss. However, Appellant's confusion as to whether he
4
was obligated to attend is not a valid excuse because the language in the CMO clearly indicates
Appellant was required to attend. Further, there was no evidence presented that Appellant was
involved in an emergency situation on the date ofthe pre-trial conference or that he had other
incourt commitments. Accordingly; this court finds Appellant's failure to appear was wholly
volitional and the Commonwealth has met its burden with regard to the third element of the
offense.
Finally, this court finds Appellant acted with wrongful intent. As has been established.
Appellant was aware of the pre-trial conference and willfully failed to appear. The CMO states:
"A final Pre-Trial Conference shall be conducted before the undersigned on Thursday, March 8
at 9:30 in Courtroom 3." (Hr'g Tr. l l.) The CMO further provides: "Defendant shall be present
at the Final Pre-Trial Conference. Defendant's failure to appear shall result in the issuance of a
Bench Warrant." (Hr'g Tr. 19.) At the hearing, the court stated that these two sentences were "in
bold" and that this portion of the CMO "jumps out" at the reader. (Hr' g Tr.. 19.) The court finds
this language is clear and unambiguous and should have alerted Appellant that he was required
to be in attendance. Thus, by the language of the CMO alone, Appellant should have reasonably
been aware that his failure to appear was wrongful.
Furthermore, the court places great emphasis on the fact that Appellant has a history of
failing to appear at scheduled hearings and has been involved in several contempt proceedings.
At the instant hearing, Attorney Friedmann explained that Appellant had a similar incident in
the recent past in Allegheny County in 2016. (Hr'g Tr. 39.) In addition, on December 18, 2017, a
contempt proceeding involving Appellant was held before the Honorable Michael J. Lucas of
the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. This hearing was held because Appellant had
failed to appear for another pre-trial conference regarding Defendant on November 30,
5
2017. (Contempt Hr'g Tr. 3, December 18, 2017.) At the time, Appellant apologized profusely to
the court and stated that he would "make every effort to.. .not let this happen again" and added
that he believed "it won't be an issue again." (Hr'g Tr. 3, 8.) Judge Lucas noted that "this isn't the
first time this has happened" and stated he "would have hoped... that [Appellant] would have
learned from that." (Hr'g Tr. 15.) However, Judge Lucas ultimately did not make a finding of
contempt against Appellant. (Hr' g Tr. 20.)
This court is deeply troubled that, roughly three months before- the instant hearing
occurred, Appellant was involved in a contempt proceeding before Judge Lucas involving the
exact same criminal case under very similar circumstances. Furthermore, much of what
Appellant stated during the hearing before Judge Lucas mirrors what he stated during the instant
hearing. For example, Appellant repeatedly apologized to this court and stated: "I want to get
these cases done, and I really would like to demonstrate to this Court going forward I am not
going to be an attorney that you have to be concerned about." (Contempt Hr' g Tr. 19, March 22,
2018.) However, the court is not convinced that Appellant's statements were sincere since
Appellant made virtually the same statements to Judge Lucas a few months earlier.
After finding Appellant was not in contempt, Judge Lucas told Appellant he was hopeful
that "this experience has taught you that you have to be a little more respectful of Court dates,"
to which Appellant replied: "This is a learning lesson I will not forget." (Contempt Hr' g Tr.
2021, December 18, 2017.) Ultimately, however, this court is not convinced Appellant has
derived any "learning lesson" from his previous contempt proceeding, nor does the court believe
Appellant is truly committed to improving his case management. The record reflects that
Appellant has exhibited a repeated failure to appear for court hearings. In the instant matter,
Appellant should have realized the seriousness of failing to appear for scheduled court hearings
and should have reasonably known that this type of conduct was wrongful, especially considering
6
he was almost found in contempt by Judge Lucas and was previously involved in another
contempt proceeding in Allegheny County under similar circumstances. Accordingly:
the court finds that the Commonwealth has met its burden with regard to the foufih element of
the offense.
Assuming, arguendo, the Commonwealth did not establish the requisite intent for
criminal contempt under §4132(2), this court finds the Commonwealth has proven a reckless
disregard for the directions of the court on Appellant's part. Appellant acknowledged that his
case management has been problematic and that he understands he needs "to be much more
careful, pay more careful attention when orders come in." (Hr'g Tr. 13, 15.) Appellant requested
the court to grant him a chance to improve his case management so that this problem would not
occur again. (Hr'g Tr. 8, 15.) However, as has been established, Appellant knew the CMO
existed and was aware of the dates listed on the CMC). The language of the CMO is clear and
unambiguous and should have left no doubt in Appellant's mind regarding his obligation to
appear. Even if Appellant has been experiencing difficulties in maintaining his practice, the
court believes Appellant could have carefully read the CMO and noted the date of the pre-trial
conference without much difficulty. Furthermore, this court reiterates that Appellant has a
history of failing to appear for court hearings and has been involved in several contempt
proceedings in the past. Appellant's prior experiences should have motivated him to improve his
case management long ago, Accordingly, this court finds the Commonwealth has proven a
reckless disregard on Appellant's part for the court's directions.
11. 42 Pa.C.S.
In order for a defendant to be convicted of criminal contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. §4132(3)3
four elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: "(l) misconduct; (2) in the presence of
the court; (3) committed with the intent to obstruct justice; and (4) that obstructs the
administration ofjustice." In re C. W., 960 A.2d 458, 469 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Behr v. Behr,
7
695 A.2d 776, 779 (Pa, Super. 1997)). Misconduct is defined as "behavior that is inappropriate to
the role of the actor," Himes v. Himes, 833 A.2d 1124, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2003). Misconduct is
deemed to have occurred in the presence of the court "if the court itself witnesses the conduct or
ifthe conduct occurs outside the courtroom but so near thereto that it obstructs the administration
ofjustice." Commonwealth v. Garrison, 386 A.2d 971, 979 (Pa. 1978). Wrongful intent will be
found "where the contemnor knows or reasonably should be aware that his conduct is wrongful."
Himes, 833 A.2d at 1126. In order for a defendant's conduct to obstruct the administration of
justice, the conduct must "significantly disrupt proceedings." Williams v. Williams, 721 A.2d
1072, 1074 (Pa. 1998) (citing Matter ofCamp010ngo, 435 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. 1981)).
Furthermore, the conduct must cause "actual, imminent prejudice to a fair proceeding or
prejudice to the preservation of the courtts orderly procedure and authority." Id. (citing
Garrison, 386 A.2d at 979).
This court finds the Commonwealth has proven all of the elements beyond a reasonable
doubt with regard to §4132(3). First, the court finds Appellant exhibited misconduct. Here,
Appellant disregarded the clear language of a court order and failed to appear for a scheduled
pre-trial conference. The CMO provided: "A final Pre-Trial Conference shall be conducted
before the undersigned on Thursday, March 8 at 9:30 in Courtroom 3." (Contempt Hr' g Tr. I l ,
March 22, 2018.) The CMO further stated: "Defendant shall be present at the Final Pre-Trial
Conference. Defendant's failure to appear shall result in the issuance of a Bench Warant."
(Hr'g Tr. 19.) This portion of the CMO was "in bold" and "jumps out" at the reader. (Hr: g Tr.
19.) As was previously stated, this court finds the language of the CMO was clear and
unambiguous and alerted Appellant of his obligation to attend the pre-trial conference.
Additionally, Appellant's testimony demonstrates that he knew the CMO existed and
was aware of the deadlines listed on same. Although Appellant contents that he did not realize
8
he was required to attend the pre-trial conference, his testimony was not credible. Appellant
admitted that he had "noticed the deadline dates" on the CMC). (Hr'g Tr. 19.) Furthermore,
Appellant was apparently aware of the date ofjury selection for Defendant MulVhy' s case, and
testified he was "driving" to the Washington County Courthouse on the date ofjury selection.
(Hr'g Tr. 24.) Regarding his failure to appear, Appellant stated that he "thought we were already
aware of the dates" and that he did not feel any extra voir dire questions were necessary. (Hr' g
Tr. 18, 19.)
Upon review of the record, the court finds Appellant knew of the pre-trial conference and
willfully failed to appear. No evidence was presented at the hearing indicating Appellant was
involved in an emergency situation or that he had other in-court commitments at the time of the
pre-trial conference. Appellant's excuse that he did not realize he was obligated to be in attendance
simply is not credible. The CMO's directive was clear and unambiguous, yet Appellant
completely disregarded it. As an attorney, Appellant has an obligation to carefully read and
comply with all court orders, to appear for all scheduled court hearings, and to zealously represent
his clients. Because Appellant's willful failure to appear is inappropriate to his role as an attorney,
the court finds the Commonwealth has met its burden with regard to the first element of the
offense.
Second, the court finds Appellant's misconduct occurred in the presence of the cout
Here, Appellant was scheduled to appear for a final pre-trial conference before this court but
failed to do so. In Himes, the defendant, counsel of record in a custody matter, failed to appear
for a custody mediation proceeding. The Superior Court explained that "his action or inactions
occurred 'in the presence of the court"' and affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt.
Himes, 833 A.2d at 1127. Likewise, Appellant's inactions occurred in the presence of this court,
and the Commonwealth has met its burden with regard to this element.
9
Third, the court finds Appellant's conduct was committed with the intent to obstruct
justice. In Himes, the defendant failed to appear for a scheduled hearing because he apparently
"felt he could not zealously represent Himes and wished to withdraw his representation." Id. The
defendant, however, did not properly withdraw from representation. Id. The Superior Court
found that the defendant's failure to appear was "inappropriate," and the defendant "reasonably
should have known such conduct was wrongful. Ids Similarly, this court finds that Appellant
should have reasonably known his conduct was wrongful for several reasons. First, as was
previously discussed, Appellant claimed at the instant hearing that he did not realize he was
required to attend the pre-trial conference because there were no pre-trial issues to discuss.
However, the CMO contains a clear and unambiguous directive for Appellant to attend the
pretrial conference; thus, Appellant's belief is unreasonable. Both jury selection and a jury trial
were scheduled for the following Monday; there were several important matters such as voir
dire questions and motions in limine which were to be addressed at the conference. Similar to
the facts in Himes, due to Appellant's failure to appear, both jury selection and the jury trial had
to be continued, which clearly obstructed the administration ofjustice. Accordingly, Appellant
should have reasonably known his failure to appear was wrongful.
In addition, this court finds that Appellant should have known his behavior was
wrongful because of his prior experiences with contempt proceedings. As has been established,
Appellant has a history of failing to appear at scheduled hearings and has been involved in
several contempt proceedings, including a proceeding in November of 2016 in Allegheny
County and another on December 18, 2017 before Judge Lucas in Washington County. (Hr'g Tr.
4, 39.) The hearing before Judge Lucas was held under the same circumstances as the instant
hearing: Appellant had failed to appear for another pre-trial conference regarding Defendant
Murphy on November 30, 2017. (Contempt Hr'g Tr. 3, December 18, 2017.) At this hearing,
10
Appellant repeatedly apologized to the court and stated that he would "make every effort to...
not let this happen again" and also told the court he believed "it won't be an issue again." (Hr'g
Tr. 3, 8.)
Judge Lucas ultimately did not make a finding of contempt against Appellant, to which
Appellant replied: "This is a learning lesson I will not forget." (Contempt Hr' g Tr. 20-21,
December 18, 2017.)
Apparently, Appellant has forgotten this "learning lesson" roughly three months after
making this statement, and the court finds this to be deeply troubling. Appellant's experiences
with contempt proceedings should have made Appellant aware of the seriousness of failing to
appear for a court hearing. Furthermore, these experiences should have motivated Appellant to
improve his case management long before the instant hearing occurred. Unfofiunately, it is clear
to this court that Appellant has not learned anything from these experiences and that he has
made minimal efforts to improve his case management. At the hearing before this court,
Appellant apologized excessively and also stated: "I'm respectfully requesting of this Court
consider the fact that I will do whatever I need to do to make this right in terms of getting this
fixed .,,
(Contempt Hr'g Tr. 14, March 22, 2018.) However, the court is not convinced that such
statements were sincere since Appellant made very similar statements to Judge Lucas, and the
court fears this pattern is going to continue. Because Appellant should have been aware his
conduct was wrongful considering his prior experiences with contempt proceedings, the court
finds that the Commonwealth has met its burden with regard to the third element of the offense.
Finally, this court finds that Appellant's misconduct obstructed the administration of justice.
Because of Appellant's failure to appear for the pre-trial conference, Defendant
Murphy's jury trial was rescheduled from the March trial term to the May trial term. (Hr' g Tr.
11
39.) Considering the lengthy number ofjury trial requests this court receives, this court has a
substantial interest in conducting jury trials efficiently. Furthermore, criminal defendants have an
important interest in having their cases resolved quickly. Appellant has caused a significant
delay to court proceedings and has also caused a hardship for Defendant MulPhy who is
incarcerated awaiting trial. Therefore, this court finds the Commonwealth has met its burden with
regard to the fourth element ofthe offense.
111. 42 Pa.C.S.
Appellant's Statement of Errors Complained ofon Appeal asserts that Appellant was
charged with criminal contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. §5947(f) according to the docket at number
CP-63-MD-0000318-2018. (Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal 2, May 17, 2018.)
However, §5947(f) is inapplicable to the instant matter. This statute was included on the docket
due to a clerical error.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the order of this court dated March 22, 201 8 should be
affirmed and Appellant's appeal should be dismissed.
DATE: BY THE COURT:
VALARIE COSTANZO, JUDGE
12