From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Green

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 30, 2018
No. J-S41036-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2018)

Opinion

J-S41036-18 No. 3716 EDA 2016

08-30-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL GREEN Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-MD-0000146-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Michael Green, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his summary conviction for contempt of court. We affirm the judgment of sentence as amended.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO PROVE THE CHARGE OF DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UNDER 42 PA.C.S.A. § 4132(3) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE: (1) THAT...APPELLANT ENGAGED IN "MISCONDUCT"
AS THERE WAS NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT APPELLANT'S REQUEST OF HIS ATTORNEY; (2) THAT APPELLANT MADE THE REQUEST OF HIS ATTORNEY WITH THE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT ANY PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT INTENDED THE COURT TO HEAR THE REMARKS NOR DID THE REQUEST ASSERT ANY HARASSING OR ILLEGAL BASIS; AND (3) THAT THE REQUEST TO HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE NO PROCEEDING OR PROCESS WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHED OR DISRUPTED?

DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSE AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE BECAUSE THE MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 5 MONTHS AND 29 DAYS EXCEEDED "ONE-HALF OF THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IMPOSED," WHICH WAS ALSO 5 MONTHS AND 29 DAYS, WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER 42 PA.C.S.A. § 9756(B) OF PENNSYLVANIA'S SENTENCING CODE AND NO EXCEPTIONS TO SUCH A REQUIREMENT WERE MET IN THIS CASE?
(Appellant's Brief at 3.)

The following principles apply to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 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
[finder] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Jones , 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick , 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).

A court's power to impose a summary punishment for contempt is set forth in Section 4132 as follows:

§ 4132. Attachment and summary punishment for contempts

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:


* * *

(3) The misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4132(3).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Carolyn H. Nichols, we conclude Appellant's first issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Appellant's sufficiency claim. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 22, 2017, at 3-5, unpaginated) (finding: Appellant made unsolicited argument during hearing while several other cases were in courtroom ready for call of list; after court advised Appellant court had already made its ruling, Appellant interrupted court twice; after court explained that it would hold Appellant in contempt if he continued, he said something inaudible to counsel; when court asked Appellant to repeat what he had said, Appellant told court he had asked counsel to file recusal motion, because "[trial judge is] bias and totally out of control"; Appellant's conduct was not result of inexperience or misunderstanding; Appellant had previously appeared in court and should have been aware of effect his comments would have on courtroom proceedings; Appellant had requisite intent to obstruct justice). The record supports the trial court's rationale, and we see no reason to disturb it. See Jones , supra. Therefore, as to Appellant's first issue, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

In his second issue, Appellant argues his sentence is illegal because it does not include a minimum term of imprisonment. Appellant concludes this Court should revise his sentence. We agree.

Criminal contempt is a crime punishable by imprisonment or fine; sentences of imprisonment for contempt must be imposed according to the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Falkenhan , 452 A.2d 750, 758 (Pa.Super. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 803, 104 S.Ct. 49, 78 L.Ed.2d 69 (1983). "The Code mandates that the sentencing court impose not only a maximum sentence, but also a minimum sentence which shall not exceed one-half the maximum[.] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b). A flat...sentence does not satisfy this requirement." Commonwealth v. Williams , 753 A.2d 856, 865 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 713, 785 A.2d 89 (2000). "While the standard remedy for a trial court's omission of a minimum sentence is to vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing...where the sentencing court clearly intended to impose the maximum sentence this Court can amend the sentence to include a minimum term equal to one-half of the maximum." Commonwealth v. Duda , 831 A.2d 728, 733 (Pa.Super. 2003) (internal citation omitted).

The General Assembly has not specified the maximum permissible term of imprisonment for a contempt conviction imposed pursuant to Section 4132. Falkenhan , supra at 758. Pennsylvania courts, however, have held the maximum sentence for a summary criminal contempt conviction may not exceed six months. Williams , supra at 865-66 (providing defendant is entitled to jury trial if sentence for criminal contempt under Section 4132(3), summary offense, exceeds six months). See also Commonwealth v. McMullen , 599 Pa. 435, 443-44 (2008) (discussing, generally, maximum imprisonment term for summary criminal contempt convictions; explaining right to jury trial under Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution and Article I, §§ 6, 9 of Pennsylvania Constitution applies when defendant faces imprisonment sentence exceeding six months).

Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant to a flat term of five (5) months twenty-nine (29) days' incarceration. Appellant's sentence included no minimum term of incarceration and is illegal. See Williams , supra. In its opinion, the trial court acknowledged Appellant's sentence is illegal and explained the court had intended to impose upon Appellant the maximum permissible sentence, which it interpreted to be five (5) months twenty-nine (29) days' incarceration. ( See Trial Court Opinion at 6, unpaginated). Therefore, we amend Appellant's sentence for his criminal contempt conviction to a term of two (2) months fourteen and one-half (14½) days to five (5) months twenty-nine (29) days' incarceration. See Duda , supra ; Williams , supra. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence as amended.

Judgment of sentence affirmed as amended. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/30/18

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Green

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 30, 2018
No. J-S41036-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Green

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL GREEN Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 30, 2018

Citations

No. J-S41036-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2018)