Com. v. Perkins, L

J-A07003-23
2023 PA SUPER 61
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LEALI PERKINS :
:
Appellant : No. 2191 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 21, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): MC-51-MD-0000017-2021
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 5, 2023
Appellant, Leali Perkins, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
on September 21, 2021, after the municipal court found him guilty of direct
criminal contempt.1 After careful review, we conclude that the court erred by
finding Appellant to be in direct contempt. As a result, we vacate Appellant’s
conviction and judgment of sentence.
On September 17, 2021, Latonya Scott testified at a preliminary hearing
in connection with a burglary charge lodged against Appellant.2 Approximately
10 to 15 minutes after the hearing concluded, Scott was waiting for the
elevator in the hallway outside the courtroom when Appellant approached her
____________________________________________
1We have jurisdiction to decide this direct appeal from the municipal court
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123(a.1).
2The charge related to the burglary of Scott’s home. N.T. Hr’g, 9/21/21, at 6.
Appellant was convicted of this charge on July 27, 2022, at trial court docket
number CP-51-CR-0008038-2021.
J-A07003-23
from behind and threatened: “I’m going to get you, you fat lying bitch.”3 Scott
immediately returned to the courtroom where she loudly told the prosecutor
that Appellant had threatened her.4
As a result of Appellant’s conduct, the court convened a contempt
hearing on September 21, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
found Appellant in direct criminal contempt pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132(3).
In explaining its rationale, the court stated, in part:
[Scott] spent fourteen or fifteen minutes sitting inside of the
courtroom and for one minute she walks out of the physical
court towards the elevator, which is some distance on this
floor. And in that one minute span she is confronted by
[Appellant].
And he makes the statement [“]I am going to get you[,] you fat
lying bitch.[”] He’s the only person near her. She hears it.
She immediately comes back to the courtroom. As soon as she
came through the door she spoke out loudly [that] he
threatened me. And that is how the [c]ourt came into
knowledge of this incident.
N.T. Hr’g, 9/21/21, at 22-23 (emphasis added). The court’s summary of the
evidence clearly indicates that (1) Appellant threatened Scott outside the
courtroom, and (2) the court’s knowledge of the threat came from Scott and
was not first-hand.
The court immediately sentenced Appellant to a term of 3 to 6 months’
incarceration on the direct criminal contempt conviction. Appellant timely filed
____________________________________________
3 N.T. Hr’g, 9/21/21, at 7.
4 Id. at 10.
-2-
J-A07003-23
a Notice of Appeal and both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Was not the evidence legally insufficient to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that [Appellant] was guilty of direct criminal
contempt where [Appellant’s] actions did not occur "in the
presence of the court" as required by the contempt statute but
rather occurred outside the presence of the judge fifteen minutes
after the case was over when [] Scott had left the courtroom,
walked 100 to 200 feet down a hallway and was about to press
the button for the elevator?
Appellant’s Br. at 3.5
A.
“A trial court’s finding of contempt will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Meehan, 235 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. Super.
2020) (citation omitted). Since this is an appeal from a contempt conviction
of the municipal court, we are “limited to a review of the record.” 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 1123(a.1). Additionally, since Appellant’s issue assails the sufficiency of the
Commonwealth’s evidence, we must determine if the evidence is sufficient to
enable the factfinder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108, 109 (Pa. Super.
2007).
____________________________________________
5 Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding
that his conduct obstructed the administration of justice. Appellant’s Br. at 3,
21. Because we grant Appellant relief based on his first issue, we do not reach
his second.
-3-
J-A07003-23
“[C]ontempt of court is the obstruction of the court’s orderly process.”
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 283 A.3d 196, 205 (Pa. 2022) (citation
omitted). Criminal contempt has “as a dominant purpose the vindication of
the dignity and authority of the court and to protect the interests of the
general public.” Commonwealth v. Marcone, 410 A.2d 759, 762 (Pa. 1980).
Criminal contempt occurs in two ways: direct and indirect. In general,
contempt is “direct when committed in the court’s presence and indirect when
committed beyond its presence.” Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. Moran,
560 A.2d 133, 136 (Pa. 1989). To sustain a conviction for direct criminal
contempt, “the following elements must be established beyond a reasonable
doubt: 1) misconduct; 2) in the presence of the court; 3) committed with the
intent to obstruct the proceedings; 4) that obstructs the administration of
justice.” Meehan, 235 A.3d at 1289; 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132(3).
Indirect criminal contempt, on the other hand, “is committed by
obstructive conduct that occurs outside of the court’s presence.” Stevenson,
283 A.3d at 205. A conviction for indirect criminal contempt requires, inter
alia, proof that the alleged contemnor’s conduct violated a “definite, clear, and
specific” order or decree. Commonwealth v. Boyer, 282 A.3d 1161, 1167
(Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted).
Finally, we observe that a defendant released before trial is implicitly
ordered to refrain from committing witness or victim intimidation. 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 4956(a). A violation of the implied order is punishable via the court’s
contempt powers. Id. at § 4955(a)(2). Thus, when a defendant released
-4-
J-A07003-23
before trial intimidates a witness of victim outside of court, as occurred in this
case, the defendant may be found guilty of indirect criminal contempt. See
Commonwealth v. Reese, 156 A.3d 1250, 1253 n.1, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(construing a conviction under Section 4955 to be a conviction for indirect
criminal contempt).
B.
Appellant’s first issue involves the interpretation of the phrase, “in the
presence of the court.” Appellant’s Br. at 10-21. Appellant argues that the trial
court improperly expanded the definition to include his conduct, which
occurred outside the courtroom. Id. According to Appellant, since his conduct
occurred outside the presence of the court, the evidence was insufficient to
convict him of direct criminal contempt. Id. We agree.
As described above, Appellant’s allegedly contemptuous conduct
occurred at the courthouse elevator, “out of the physical court [and] some
distance [away] on this floor.” N.T. Hr’g at 22-23. The judge acknowledged
that he was not present to view the misconduct, and learned of it only when
the victim returned to the courtroom immediately after the proceeding had
ended. Id. Nonetheless, the court convicted Appellant of direct criminal
contempt. Id. at 22, 28. In support, the court quoted Commonwealth v.
Falana, 696 A.2d 126, 129 (Pa. 1997), to reason that “misconduct occurs in
the presence of the court . . . if the conduct occurs outside the courtroom but
-5-
J-A07003-23
so near thereto that it obstructs the administration of justice.” N.T. Hr’g at 23-
25.6
In Falana, the trial court convicted the defendant of direct criminal
contempt for threatening his assault victim in the “public section of the
courtroom while his back was to the judge.” 696 A.2d at 129. In affirming the
judgment of sentence, our Supreme Court opined that “misconduct occurs in
the presence of the court if the court itself witnesses the conduct or if the
conduct occurs outside the courtroom but so near thereto that it obstructs the
administration of justice.” Id.
The trial court’s reliance on Falana is misplaced for several reasons.
First, the Falana Court’s statement relating to misconduct outside the
courtroom is dicta since the question in Falana was whether it was
contemptuous for a defendant to issue a threat in the courtroom in a voice
too low for the trial judge to have heard. See Falana, 696 A.2d at 129. See
also Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364, 400 n.18 (Pa. 2018)
____________________________________________
6 At the contempt hearing, the trial court relied upon Falana. In its Rule
1925(a) Opinion, however, it has relied on other legal authority that addresses
direct contempt convictions based on a defendant’s failure to appear for a
court hearing. Trial Ct. Op., 7/19/22, at 3-4 (unpaginated). We find those
cases distinguishable from the facts before us because the failure to appear
when ordered is an act that occurs in the presence of the court, as the court
has convened and the contemnor’s absence from the tribunal is evident.
Commonwealth v. Ferrera, 409 A.2d 407, 411 (Pa. 1979). See also
Commonwealth v. Marcone, 410 A.2d 759, 764 n.5 (Pa. 1980) (explaining
that the “deliberate and unexcused absence” from a scheduled court
appearance may be “a direct contempt” on the basis that “this type of
misconduct is the absence which is witnessed by the court”). Appellant’s
conduct in the instant case did not occur in the court’s presence.
-6-
J-A07003-23
(defining dicta as “[a] judicial comment made while delivering a judicial
opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore
not precedential” (citation omitted)).7
Moreover, our Supreme Court subsequently explained that Falana
stands for the concept that while the contemptuous conduct must occur “in
the presence of the court,” the court “is under no obligation to prove that it
actually witnessed the disturbance.” Commonwealth v. Moody, 125 A.3d 1,
10-11 (Pa. 2015). The Moody Court accordingly held that direct criminal
contempt is, thus, defined by misconduct “‘directly under the eye’ of the
court—in the sense that the court is looking directly at it—[and] anywhere
‘within the view of the court.’” Id. at 12 (citation omitted).
Considering the above, it is evident that the misconduct at issue did not
occur “in the presence of the court.” The court did not hear the threat, as
Appellant issued it at the courthouse elevator, outside the courtroom and
“some distance [away] on this floor.” N.T. Hr’g at 23. The misconduct, thus,
did not occur “directly under the eye of the court [nor] anywhere within the
view of the court.” Moody, 125 A.3d at 12. Since the misconduct occurred
____________________________________________
7 Additionally, the Court in Falana, 696 A.2d at 129, derived the phrase “so
near thereto” from a line of cases that, at its inception, cited to the federal
contempt statute, 18 U.S.C. § 401(1), for the definition of direct contempt.
Section 401 defines direct contempt as “[m]isbehavior of any person in [the
court’s] presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of
justice.” Id. (emphasis added). The words “so near thereto” are conspicuously
absent from the Pennsylvania statute. 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132(3).
-7-
J-A07003-23
outside the presence of the court, the court erred by finding Appellant in direct
criminal contempt.8
C.
As a result of the above, we vacate Appellant’s conviction and judgment
of sentence for direct criminal contempt.9
Judgment of sentence vacated.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/05/2023
____________________________________________
8 Further, as the Moody Court observed, direct criminal contempt is
punishable by summary proceedings without “the usual steps of . . . a
conventional court trial[,] . . . a drastic departure from our traditional view of
due process.” 125 A.3d at 8 (citation omitted). To expand the definition of “in
the presence of the court” to include conduct that is outside the presence of
the court would risk encroaching on defendants’ constitutional right to due
process.
9 As discussed supra, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4955 and 4956 authorize the trial court
to convict a defendant, who is released before trial, of indirect criminal
contempt when the defendant intimidates a victim outside the presence of the
court. Since the trial court did not convict Appellant of indirect criminal
contempt, we are constrained to reverse the conviction.
-8-