Opinion
J-S10007-16 No. 1052 EDA 2015
01-27-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ROLLYN MALIG Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0005398-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Rollyn Malig, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following Appellant's conviction of criminal contempt for violation of a Protection from Abuse ("PFA") order. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. On January 5, 2015, the court entered a temporary PFA order against Appellant, which "restricted any and all contact" with the victim (Appellant's wife). On February 6, 2015, Appellant deliberately sent two text messages to the victim. After Appellant's wife did not respond to the text messages, Appellant reached out a third time by sending the victim an email on February 7, 2015.
On March 17, 2015, the court found Appellant guilty of one count of contempt for violation of the PFA and sentenced Appellant to six (6) months' reporting probation, plus participation in an anger management program and a mental health assessment. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant on April 30, 2015, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on May 15, 2015
Appellant's notice of appeal was initially filed on March 24, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas and later on April 7, 2015 with this Court.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE [ITS] DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR A FINDING OF WRONGFUL INTENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT MAKE A FINDING OF WRONGFUL INTENT?(Appellant's Brief at 6).
DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR [WHEN] IT CONSIDERED AND RULED BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINANT MIGHT BE FEARFUL, WHICH IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Holly J. Ford, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 11, 2015, at 3-6) (finding: Appellant deliberately contacted victim through text messages and email on three separate occasions, despite active PFA order prohibiting contact; text messages invited victim to meet with Appellant alone; at trial, Appellant failed to present evidence supporting her claim that she first contacted victim regarding their child's problems at school; court rejected Appellant's argument that her contact with victim was non-threatening, because neither aggression nor harassment are requirements for finding of indirect criminal contempt in this context, and no de minimus violation exception exists; Appellant acted intentionally and deliberately when she chose to send text messages and email directly to victim, violating PFA order; court rejected Appellant's claim that victim's fearfulness provided any basis for court's decision). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/27/2016
Image materials not available for display.