J-A06013-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II : : Appellant : No. 676 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000432-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II : : Appellant : No. 677 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000441-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II : : Appellant : No. 678 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000440-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA J-A06013-23
: v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II : : Appellant : No. 679 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000096-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON : : Appellant : No. 680 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000006-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM M. SOLOMON : : Appellant : No. 681 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000005-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : :
-2- J-A06013-23
WILLIAM MANSOUR SOLOMON II : : Appellant : No. 682 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-MD-0000472-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: JUNE 21, 2023
Appellant, William Mansour Solomon II, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on December 29, 2021. We affirm.
The trial court ably explained the facts and procedural posture of this
appeal:
On July 13, 2020, Appellant’s wife, Heather Solomon, filed for a temporary protection of abuse (PFA) order against [Appellant]. [The trial court] granted the temporary order and both parties appeared at the final PFA hearing held July 27, 2020. . . . [That day, the trial court] granted a final PFA for the duration of two years – until July 27, 2022.
Appellant subsequently was charged with [seven] violations of the July 27, 2020 final order, specifically that: (1) he made an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon on or about September 28, 2020; (2) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening email on or about November 28, 2020; (3) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening email on or about December 22, 2020; (4) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening email on or about December 29, 2020; (5) he broke and tampered with the front window of Ms. Solomon’s residence and tampered with and opened her postal mail on or about January 28, 2021; (6) he sent Ms. Solomon threatening messages via Facebook on or about April 20, 2021; [and,] (7) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening message via Facebook on or about May 4, 2021. ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-3- J-A06013-23
...
A bench trial was held [on] December 29, 2021 at which [time] Appellant was represented by counsel. He was found guilty of all [seven counts of indirect criminal contempt (ICC) and sentenced to an aggregate [term of 15 to 30 months in jail].
Trial Court Opinion, 8/2/22, at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motions, Appellant
filed timely notices of appeal. At Docket Numbers 676 WDA 2022, 677 WDA
2022, 678 WDA 2022, 680 WDA 2022, 681 WDA 2022, and 682 WDA 2022,
Appellant raises the following claims:
[1.] Whether the trial court erred in admitting emails and Instagram posts that were not properly authenticated to prove that they came from Appellant?
[2.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant violated a final PFA order?
[3.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of the evidence?
See, e.g., Appellant’s Brief, 676 WDA 2022, at 10.
At Docket Number 679 WDA 2022, Appellant raises the following claims:
[1.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant violated a final PFA order?
[2.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of the evidence?
Appellant’s Brief, 679 WDA 2022, at 9.
-4- J-A06013-23
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified
record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Linda R.
Cordaro. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for
the reasons expressed in Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion. Therefore,
we affirm on the basis of Judge Cordaro’s thorough opinion and adopt it as
our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,
the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 6/21/2023
-5- 06/09/2023 02-07 Circulated 08/09/2023 02:07 PM
IN THE COURT IN THE COURT OF OFCOMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEASOF OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL. DIVISION CRIMINAL
COMMON ATEALTFI OF COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 'No.. No. 432 of 2020 432 0f 202.0 M.D. M.D. *No. 472 0f No. 472 of 2020 M.D. M.D V. No. *5 of No. 0f 2021 M.D. No. 660f No. of 2021 M.D M.D. WILLIAM M.*SOLOMON M. SOLOMON II, No.: 06 No. of 2021 M.D. 96 0f Na. 440 0f No. of 2021 M.D. Appellant, Appellant. Na 441 No. 441 0f of 2021 AM.D. 2o2_1 -M:D.
OPINION OPINION
Linda K R. Cordaro, Cordaro,.j. J.
SUMMARY SUMMARY
Appellant Appellant wa:s comricted after aabench trial on December was convicted 29,.2021 December 29, (7) 2021 on seven (7)
'counts of indirect counts of indirect criminal contempt contempt for Aolatiou.of violation of aafinal. final PFA order. He was sentenced
iminediately immediately*after trial to after trial three (3) to three io six (3) to six (6) (6) months months of incarceration incarceration on each charge; on each charge' five five
(5) sentences () sentences were were imposed imposed as consecutive and as consecutive two (2) and two (2) were were imposed imposed as concurrent'with as concurrent with
the rest, for the rest, for an:aggregate sentence of an aggregate sentence of.fifteen. i5 }.to fifteen ((15) thirty (3b).innonths to thirty (30) months ofof incarceration. incarceration.
Appellant no W appeals Appellant now his convictions. appeals his convictions.
PROCEDURAL B PROCEDURAL ACKGROUND. BACKGROUND
July i.3, On July Appellant's wife, 13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather Heather Solomon, filed filed for aatemporary
protection of abuse (PFA) protection order:against (PFA) order against hire. a temporary order and him. This court granted a
set aadate and. and time for the final hearing. At that hearing on Ju1y hearing. :At 2020 ;Ms. Solomon July 27, 2020,
represented by was represented by .counsel counsel and Appellant appeared pro se. At the conclusion of the
hearing this. Court granted hearing,;this granted a a final PFA PA order effective for two years years:— - until July 27, 2022. 2022..
Page Pageiof 1.5- 15 Appellant Appellant subsequently was charged subsequently charged with seven seven (7) (7) counts of indirect criminal
cbiiten .pt for contempt for 1•icilatirig violating the order. on the order seven (7) on seven separate.occasioils () separate occasions between September 30,
2o2o:and 2o20 and Mai= May 4, 4, 2021. 2021. A A bench trial •vas'held was held December 29, 2g, 2o2r 2o21 at wliicl which-1Appellant
was was represented represented by by counsel. He was found:*uilt}' found guilty on all counts counts.and and sentenced to an
aggregate fifteen (15) aggregate thirty (30) (15) to thirty rnanths.of (3o) months of ii.icarceration.iminediately after trial. incarceration immediately after
On January On 7;2022 January 7, 2022,;the Fayette Fayette County Clerk of Courts received a adocument from
Appellant's Appellant's trial counsel: counsel: "Motion "Motion for.-Post-Sentence for Post Sentence Relief Pursuant Pursuantta to Pa.R:Crim.Proc, Pa.R.Crim.Proc.
720." However; there 720." However, bereis n61ndication is no indication that- that the document was served- served on the Fayette
County Court County Court Administrator.' Administrator Consequently,. Consequently, the document was added to the the. case file, but
.it it :was never presented presented as a a motion. On June On June 6, 5, 2022, 2.022, Appellant. Appellant filed a a prose Appeal.. on pro se Notice of Appeal on. all seven seven (7) (7) cases
on on the because this Cout theory that because the theory had not issued C01n`t.had issued a decision on. the January decision on Janu.aiT 7,. , 2022
post-sentence post-sentence motion i%rithiA one hundred and twenty within , twenty (12o). (12o) days of filing,. filing, the motion
was denied by was denied by operation operation of law law as of af.May 7; 2022. May 7, 2022. Accordingly, Appellant Appellant filed his Notice
of Appeal of Appeal within within.thirty thirty (30) (3o) days of date; This Court issued a of that date. a1925(b) ig26(b) Concise
Statement Statement order and Appellant's Appellant's how counsel. responded with a new counsel a timely:Statement timely Statement filed at
each of the seven above-captioned each of above=captioned.matters, matters. Qn On July 25, P_62'2, tbe 2o22, 25,. , the Superior Court*sua Court s
sponte appeals.. sponte consolidated the appeals. FACTUAi.BACKGROUND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
.On July 13, On July 13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather Solomon, filed for for aatenporary temporary
protection protection of abuse abuse (PFA) (PFA) order against againsther her Husband. husband. This 'Tis Court granted the temporary
order.and order and both parties appeared at the final - parties appeared PFA hearing held July 27, 2020. 2020, Ms, MS.
'The document certifies The the .district certifies service by hand delivery to the undersigned and the district attorney: attorney. However, i5 no record there i in judicial chambers of delivery record . iii delivery. -
Page aof 15 Solomon was: Solomon was represented represented by counsel, Appellant appeared.pro counsel, Appellant se, and both parties gave pfo :
testimony. testimony. 'I - iis* Court found Ms. This Ms. -Solomon's Solomon's testimony to be credible and granted aafinal
PFA PFA for the duration of two years— years - until July 27, 2022: 2022.
Appellant subsequently was charged Appellant subsequently charged with seven (7). (7) violations of the July 27, 27; 2020
final final order, order, specifically specifically that: (i) (1) he made made'an an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon Soloman on
about`September or about September 28,.:202'(j 28, 20203; 3; (2) be he ,sent Ms. Solomon aathreatening email ;on or about
November 28, 28, 20205; 2.0204; (3) he sent Ms. Solomon Soloman aathreatening threatening email on or about
.December 22,.20205;:. December 22, 20205; (4).he. Ms.. Solomon a () he sent Ms. a threatening email on or about December
29, 2020 5;.(5) he broke 29, 2020;(5) broke: and tampered tampered with the front window of Ms. Solomon's Sol omon's.residence residence
and tampered tampered with and opened her postal mail on on. or about January 28, 20217(6) 2x21;%,(6) he
sent Ms. Soloi7ion Solomon thte* ateiiing messages threatening messages via Vacebook Facebook on or about April April 20,.2o?i.; 6 (7}.lie 20, 2021;(7) he
sent Ms. Solomon aatlreatening Facebookon threatening message via Facebook on or about May May-4, 4,*2'62°1.9 2021.9
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant Appellant raises three issues in his Concise Statement: Statement: (1) the evidence presented
was insufficient to prove prove the Appellant Appellant violated the PFA (2) Appe PA order; (2) l lant's Appellant's
convictions were against the weight weight of evidence; evidence; ((3)the 3) the trial court coiii-tadmitted evidence that that
was.not was properly airthenticated, not properly authenticated
2This Court's findings This included . findi.ngs.included that the that the. Appellant Appellant:threatened Ms. Solomon on on ;Iuly`12 hee pointed 'aa 2020 ;-:h July 2 ;2oz0, .gun at. her; gun at her, struggled struggled •Adtli.her, with her, and attempted to prevent prevent*her froiri leaving the.house. her from the house 3676. W94 366 WDA 20222022 4682 WD42022 4682 WDA 2022 681.'WDA 681 2022 WDA 2022 668o WDA 6680 2.022 WDA 2022 7 679 WDA-2022 679 WDA 2022 8 678 WDA 868 WDA 20222022 9677INDA 2o22 67W42022
Page 3 0f 15 3 of15 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES
There are two issues to There are to `address address-before before aa. discussion of the merits merits of this. this appeal: appeal: (X)' {1)
the the Notice, Notice of Appeal Appeal arguably untimely, arguably is untimely; (2) arequest to Preppare (2) a prepare aatranscript of the
proceedings proceedings has not,been not been received.
As to the the first first issue of timeliness timeliness,;. the Notice Notice of Appeal was filed June June6, 6, 2022, one one.
hundred and fifty-nine ( 159 *)days after the December. fifty-nine (159) 2o2r imposition of sentence. December 29, 2021
'flee: The record record shows that the the 'Fayette Cleric of Courts received and stamped Fayette County Clerk stamped aa
document with document with the title Motion "Motion for Post=Sentence Post-Sentence RelieOf`from Relief from Appellant's trial. trial counsel
on January 7, 2022, January 7, 2022, which which:is. is inTithin within the ten-day period for aa. timely post-sentence motion
under Pa.R.Criin.P: 72o(A)(1). However, there is no indication that the Pa.R.Crim.P. 720A1). the "motion" ever
was was served on the served on the Fayette County Court Administrator as required by Pa._R.Crim.P. Fayette County Pa.R.Crim.
576(b)1) and local rule F.CR.Crim.P. 576(b)(i) : F.C.R.Crim.P.: 575 1)•• ° Consequently, the 575().° the "motion" motion" was never never
presented presented to to this this Court for consideration. In fact, consideration. *In fact, the the existence of a a post-sentence filing
only came only came'to to light light Nvheh when Appellant mentioned.it Appellant mentioned it in his prose pro se Notice of Appeal. This arguably the'appeal arguably means the appeal is untimely under Pa. is untimely R.Cr iM...P. * Pa.R.Crim.P. 72o(A)(3) since there was no 720(A)(3)
post- sentence inotion post-sentence motion and the appeal appeal was filed more than 3o days after imposition of
sentence. "When post-sentencing When post•sentencing*motions sentence. motions are not filed, the judgment of sentence
constitutes a.final a final and appealable appealable order .for for purposes of appellate appellate.re'Viel7 review and any appeal
' F;C,R.Crim,P. 575U)reads FCR.Crim.PR. 9 5750 reads as follows: follows: "The Ihe moving party shall file the original motion, Certificate of Presentation, Presentation, and anyany: attachments in. filing office before presentment in Motions in the appropriate fling Court. An Motions Court. original original propose.d order (if proposed :order (if any.), any, aacopy copy.of tte Certificate of Presentation, Certificate of Service, -and motion, of the assembled inin that order order,;shall be delivered to the court administrator and.every party of and every other party of. record. record, Pursuant.to Pursuant ta P.a.R:Crim.P. 576(B)(i), all motions and other.documents for which filing is required shall be Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(1(), served on each party party and the court administrator so so:as to: be received'atleast as to two ((2) received at least two 2) business days before preseritatio*n presentation in.Mations. in Motions Court, Court, unless there are emergency circumstances specified in the motion requiring requiring presentation presentation within within a. a shorter time."
4 0f Page 4 Of 15 15 therefrom therefrom must be filed filed.withinihirty within thirty (36) (3o) days of the'imposition the imposition of sentence." sentence.
Commo7aweatth V•. Bori•ero, Commonwealth v. 69a.A.2d Borrero, 692 x58,159 A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. (Pa. Super. Ct.19971 1997). Conversely, li]f "[i]f
post-sentencing motions post-sentencing rnotioris are are timely timely filed ..: judgment of sentence ..judgment sentence. does does *not not become final
for purposes purposes of appeal appeal until -the trial court disposes of themotion, the motion, or the motion is.denied is denied
by operation of law." Id: by operation Id. An appropriate:order appropriate order must must be on record for the Superior Court
to have jurisdiction. I Id. Here, Here, the the December 29, 2o21 imposi₹ion. 29, 2021 imposition of sentence is the. the final final :order order on record. record'.
There is no -order denying There denying aapost-sentence post=sentence.i7iotion motion (by [by operation of lash law or otherwise} or otherwise)
because, effectively,. no. because, effectively, no post-sentence motioil was post-sentence motion ever made. was ever A.court made. A court.cannot decide. ,Or cannot decide, or
fail- to decide, fail decide, on a amotion motion. ,never presented presented to it. it. This Court still will provide provideIts its analysis. analysis
of the nierits, merits, but hecause.the because the December 29, 2021 order is 29, is *the the only final, appealable app ealab] e. order
on record,. record, thin this appeal appeal arguably is untimely.
Asto`the As to the second issue of second issue of a alack lack of of transcript, Appellant's pro.se transcript, Appellant's pro se Notice.of Appeal Notice of Appeal
certified. that certified a complete transcript(s) that."a:camplete trariscript(s) :of of the non jury and sentencing proceedings have nor-jury
be*6 rdered in this matter." However, there is no record that any request was received been ordered
from either Appellant or.liis Appellant or his counsel as under Ta.R.A.P; Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d):and 1911(d) and Pa.R.J.A.. Pa.R.J.A. 4007(A).
The certification in in the the Notice of Appeal Appeal does not. not substantially comply with with the form form of aa
request as in PA.R.A.P. request Pa. R.A.P. -1911(c), and it states 1911(0), states that transcripts transcripts "have been" -.ordered, have been" ordered, so it
cannotbe.deemed:a cannot be deemed a transcript transcript request request itself. Under Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) if an appellant fails fils a
to take take. the required required action for preparation preparation of the transcript, transcript, "the "the appellate court may take
such.. action' such action as it deems appropriate, appropriate, which may include include dismissal of the appeal."
Page: 5. of Pages Of 15 However ;because However, because dismissal is not an autoimtie automatic result, this Court will provide provide. its analysis
of the merits of the appeal -.'1 1
DlscussION DISCUSSION
Appellant's'first Appellant's first issue is that the Commonwealth Commonwealth. failed to produce sufficient sufficient
evidenceta evidence grave Appellant to prove Appellant violated the provisions provisions.ofof.the • o2o PFA the July 27, 2020 PRA order. order: His
second issue as to the weight states,. generally, that the protected party, Ms. weight of evidence states, Ms
Solo M* on, "fabricated evidence, Solomon, evidehce,.1ied lied urtder under oath, and manipulated the facts." facts:" Concise Coheise
Statement at at 118.- 8. His third issue claims that video. video and electronic mail eNgdence evidence presented
at trial was inadequately authenticated. authenticated.'
Appellant's position Appellant's forth.in position as set forth in his third issue is .that some`eAdence.should some evidence should not
have been been admitted because it lacked proper authentication..However, proper authentication. However, ;tliis this third issue issue
iniplicates implicates the first two as well well because the allegedly improperly admitte&evidence admitted evidence is is
among the evidence this among considered.for this Court considered for its sufficiency and weight. There€ore, Therefore, the
issue of whether video and electronic issne electronic.mail.evidence mail evidence was adequately authenticated will be be
addressed first.
Auth ent ication. of Authentication of.Evidence Evidence
Appellant argues that this Court ermd. Appellant erred when it. videwsand it admitted video and email
that was not adequately evidence that adequately authenticated. authenticated. "All "Al] relevant evidence is admissible,
except as otherwise except otheilvise provided provided by law." law. Pa.R.E. 402. 4o2.*The. The admissibility of evidence is i.Nrithin within
discretion: ofthe the sound discretion couit, which the trial court, which* in must consider the relevance and probative
TheThe. testimony testimony:and and facts as recounted in this Opinion Opinion. are based on audio recording and notes of the trial and sentencing pnweedings.. proceedings 12 At n the December At the Dec.mber 29, 29, 2023 trial, Appellant's trial 2021 rial, trial counsel counsel objected to the admission of all exhibits exhibits on the the basis of lack of authentication. authentication 131t Itis is unclear what Appellant'means Appellant means by by "video video evidence" since the only'exhihits only exhibits admitted were copies of emails, emails, photographs photographs attached toto. the emails, emails ;and and. an Instagram post. No.video No video or audio recordings were presenteTat. presented at trial. trial
.Page fi of 1s* Page6of15 value of ofsuch such -eN deuce against evidence its prejudicial effeet. against'its effect. Commonwealth CamThonwealth u.. vu. Gonzalez, Gonzale, 09 109
A.3d 726 (Pa. A.3d 711, 726 Super. Ct. 2or5) (Pa. Super.. 2o15) (citation omitted), Atrial (citation omitted). A trial court's rulings on
admissibility.will be.overturned admissibility will not be showing of abuse of overturned absent aashowing of discretion. Id. discretion. Id.
As defined by by the Pennsylvanla Rules *of Pennsylvania Rules Evidence: ""digital of Evidence: digital evidence" includes
"em.0s, "emails, text messages, messages, social media postings, and images.` socialmedia to_Pa.R.E. images." Comment to go1(b),. Pa.R.E. 901(b)
Digital Digital evidence is subjeci.to subject to authentication before it it is admissible, that is, "the
proponent proponent must must.produce produce evidence sufficient to evidence sufficient support.aa finding to support finding tbat the. :item that the is what item -is the Arhat the
proponent elaims its proponent claims is." Pa.R.E. it is," Pa. R. E. 901(a), 9oi(a). In order to link digital evidence with. with aaperson or
entity; the entity, proponent must the proponent must:offer either direct offer either direct evidence evidence *(e.g., testimony from (e.g., testimony an from an
individual i \nth personal knovdedge} with , knowledge) or circumstantial evidence. Such evidence may
include. "Proof include ownership,. possession, control, or .access "proof of ownership, access'to to a'de"rice a device or account at the
relevant'tim.e'vd-len relevant circuinsiances .indicating time when corroborated by circumstances authorship:' Pa.R.E. iiidicating authorship." Pa.R..E.
goi(b)(i1)(B)(ii).. However, although 901(b)(11)((i). proof of althougli proof "ownership, possession, of "ownership; control ;or access" possession, control,
is probative other evidence probative when combined with other evid en* ceof of the idehtity;'this the author's identity, this alone is not
authentication. Comment to Pa.R:E. sufficient for authentication. gor(b).:Other Pa.K.E. 901(b). eNrideni eof identity Other evidence
includes identifying characteristies, content, or substance.that, identifying -characteristics, substance that,'when. taken together when tal,-en together with
all drwrastan6es,. links an alleged author to the evidence. al! the circumstances, evidence.. M, Id. The relative anonymity: anonymity
of emails eanails or text messages does not mean. Text messages mean they are.inherently they :are unreliable,.not inherently unreliable, anymore not any more so
than are written Commonwea ih v. Kaeh, wr=itten documents which can be forged or copied. Commomwealth 3* Koch, 39
A.3d A.3d 996, (Pa. Super. 1003 (Pa. 996,1003 Super. Ct. 2011), 2011)., affd by an equally divided court; affd curt, 1o6 106 A.3d'705 A.3d 705 (Pa. (Pa
2014). Finally ;a 2014). Finally, proponent of digital evidence a proponent need only offer sufficient evidence.need sufficient evidence to to
finding that a support the finding support person was particular.person a particular aufhot; it is not necessary was the author; necessary to to prove prove
that: could.possibly that no one else could possibly be the author author. Comment to to. Pa. R.E. 9o1. Pa.R.E. 901
Page 70f Page 7of 15 During the:December During the December 2g, 2o21 trial,.the: 2g; 2022 Commonwealth. presented seven exhibits. trial, the Commonwealth
Exhibits 1, 1, 2, and. and `33 were presented CP-26..-MD-0000006-2027 .(683- presented at case CP-26-MD-0000005-2021 (681 W DA 2622). WDA 2022).
Exhibits and( 22 were Exhibits 11and were. copies copies of an email email: that Ms. testified sbe Ms. Solomon testified she received from from the
same email address Appellant to ' communicate with her while they Nvere Appellant had used to were still
together. Exhibit together. Exhibit:33 was a.photograph a photograph that Ms. Ms. Solomon testified was attached attached to that
email message message and which she identified.as of her leaving-her identified as aaphotograph of leaving her house.
.Exhibits Exhibits 44and s6.-,vere presented at. were presented at case CP=2:6-MD- 000000.C -2021 (680 CP-26-MD-0000006-2021 (68o WDA 2022). 2022)
Exhibit Exhibit 44was was aacopy copy of of,an. email from an email from the the same email address same email Ms..S61onion address that Ms. had Solomon had
testified belonged belonged to the Appellant, Appellant, and Exhibit`6 Exhibit 5 was a a photograph that,, that, again, she
testified. testified was attached to that that message,.this showing her buckling the son message, this time showing son. she shared
with Appellant her driveway. Exhibit 66was presented Appellant into the car in her presented, at case ease.CP-26-WI CP 226-MD--
0432- 262 0.(676 0000432-2020 000 2022). This exhibit was aacopy of (676 WDA 2022). of. an an. Tnstagram Instagram post. post that Ms. Ms.
Solomon testified Solomon pasted from testified was posted account with a from an account u.sername she a username she knew- knew to to belong belong to to the the
Appellant aid which had Appellant and had aa,profile profile picture picture of Appellant. Exhibit Exhibit' 77was was presented at case
CP=26-MD-og00472-2020 (682 CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682 WDA 2022). This exhibit was a a copy of an email that
Ms. Solomon testified Ms. Solomon she received testified she from.the received from email address the same email address as the other emails the other emails at at
Exhibits 1-5. She 1-5. She. also testified that the : Appellant typically typically used his:mobile'phane, his mobile phone, not aa
desktop computer desktop (which re* computer (which mained in laer remained her house) house),;to access social media. This testirriony testimony
offeret proof that offered proof that Appellant Appellant had of,'possession had ownership of, possession of, control of, or access to to the the
email and ' email lnstagrani Instagram accounts. accounts. However, However, this this was not the was not extent of the extent of the evidence the the evidence the
Commonwealth presented content,of presented for authentication; more compelling was the content of the
emails and histagrarri post, each of Instagram .post, ofwhich which referred to events and circumstances involving to events
Appellant Ms, Solomon. Appellant and Ms. Salomon.
Page 8of Page S. of 1¢ 15 Exhibits'! and 2:2 included Exhibits 1 and inclu ded .statements statements such such as as "You think what "You think what T I pointed pointed at. at you you was was
bad, wait bad, wait until you see.what you see what I'm capable of of. now," now, "Your Your paper won't help you," and an "You "You
think the think the army army taught taught me to be stupid?" Ms. Ms..Solomon Solomon testified that Appellant had been
in the army in the referring to message was referring army and that the message to an incident in an incident July 2020, in July 2o•% when the the
Appellant Appellant .had pointed pointed a a gun at -her:and her and their son.
Exhibit 4included Exhibit 4 included the statement; statement: "my girlfri end and I.fully "My girlfriend I fully intend intend to take take Sterling
.and raise him s0* and raise he. has a so he agood good chance at:a•future:" at a future." The email specifically mentioned the
couple's son, couple's son, and and the final PFA order had awarded temporary custody of the child to Ms.
Soloinon. Solomon. Exhibit Exhibit 66included aapicture. ofms. picture of Ms. Solomon with some text stating: stating: "If anyone
sees*this sees cunt feel this cunt feel free to. to snake make every shot count." Again,..Ms. Again, Ms. Solomon testified that
Appellant Appellant had .pointed pointed aagun gun.atlier. at her.
7 included statements Exhibit 7 staten*its -such as as "Someone needs to. to ruin your life lifelike like you're
ruining my son'gs ruining my sori's.life," " I'll show you life," "I'll you.what aa.PFA PFA is. about,"≥and is really about," and ""Go Go;ahead ahead:and and keep
running-your mouth I'll let. running your mouth Sterling watch:" let Sterling watch." Here Here again is is a a direct mention of the couple's
son as well as of the PFA order order. :
This.Court This Court.considered.Ms.. considered Ms. Solomon's testimony and identifying characteristics
such as such names or as names or photos photos.associated-with the communications associated with the comrnunicatians but but'also considered'the. also considered the
specific specific content of the the. digital evidence presented. Here, the* the combination of direct and
circumstantial evidence ivas was enough to authenticate the evidence as as. what the: the
Commonwealth claimed into it to be: contact contact made made by Appellani Appellant with MS.- Ms. Solomon.
The. discussion The discussion of tbe'two the two remaining issues -- sufficiency of the evidence and
weight weight of the evidence --presumes the evidence -presumes the digital evidence was adequately authenticated and
properly admitted: properly admitted
Page*g*.of 35 Sufficiency of Sufficiency Evidence of Evidence
Appellant argues Appellant argues in his. his first*issue. first issue that evidence presented at trial was insufficient
to find find that he was guilty that he guilty of violating the the.PFA order.. PFA order. Evidence is insufficient as Evidence is as'a a matter
of law of law when when the.evidence offered to the evidence offered to support support the the verdict is in verdict is coritradiction to in contradiction to the the physical
facts, or in facts, or in contravention contravention. to to human experience and human experience and the of .nature. the laws of nature. Commonwealth V, v
Wide»ier, Widemer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 75 1 ((Pa. Pa. 2000) 20o0) (citing (citing Cam7i7onwealth Commonwealth v:v. Santana, 333 333 A.2d A.2d
876, 878 876, (Pa. 1975)). The Pennsylvania. 878 (Pa..1975))..The Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court.has bas'held held.that that "[ e]vidence will "[evidence will be
deemed suffeient deemed sufficient to support the verdict support the verdictwhen when it establishes each -material element of the it. establishes
charged acid crime charged the commission thereof by an the by the the accused, :beyond aareasonable doubt."
751. The Id. at 751. fact- finder-may The fact-finder resolve any nay resolve doubts regarding any doubts regarding aadefendant's defendant's guilt guilt "unless "unless
the evidence is weal: and inconclusive is so weak inconclusive that as aamatter of law no probability of fact
inq may be drawn from the circumstances" Corhmonwealth the. combined .circumstances.' Commonwealth v. Fortson,165*A.8d Fortson, 165 A.3d
10, 10,*14 14 (Pa.. Super. Ct. 2017). (Pa. Super 2017):
The Commonwealth The Co mmonwealthimust must prove elements :for prove four elements for aacharge of indirect criminal
1) the PFA contempt: ( contempt:()the order was PA order was sufficiently sufficiently definite, clear, clear,. and and specific specific sa le av e no so as to leave
doubt*as doubt as to what conduct was prohibited; (z) the accused (2) the accused.had had notice.of the order; notice of the order; ((3) 3) the the
act constituting act constituting the the violation violation must must have have been. of the been of own, volition; and the accused's own and. (4) (a) the
accused acted accused acted with with wrongful wrongful intent. intent. Commonwealth z,. v. Brumbaugh, 932 A; 2d id A.2d 8, 110 108,
(Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. Ct. Ct..20o7}. 2007)
-On the:final On the Commonwealth's motion, this Court took judicial notice of the final PFA
order at order at the the start of of December December 29, -2o21 that the trial, including that 202-I.irial, the order was effective.July was . effective July
through July 27, 2020 through July 27, 27, 2022; that the Appellant that the personally lead Appellant personally had appeared,
at the unrepresented, at unrepresented, filial hearing; the final hearing; that the order that the order protected protected Ms. Solomon;. and Ms. Solomon; and that that the the
provisions Appellant was not to provisions were that Appellant to ""abuse, abuse, harass; harass, stalk, or threaten" Ms. MS
Pate 10 Page of 1 o of x"i Solonion,.he Solomon, he was evicted fron-i`her from her residence, he. he tnras was pi ohibited from prohibited from. having any contact
•%pith Ms. Solomon, either directly with directly or indirectly, and that temporary,custody of the
couple'.s child was couple's was. with Ms. Solomon Solomon.
There is little doubt that these provisions provisions were definite, clear, clear:, and specific, and, as
Appellant Appellant was present present at the final hearing,.he hearing, he had notice. notice of the provisions proyisions and the
duration of the. the order. Furthermore, the content of the messages Ms. Solomon received,
as 'as presented. by.the presented by the Commonwealth, included statements statements. of such a personal,. direct, a personal, direct: ,and
derogatory nature that they could not have been accidental nor inadvertent.. Finally, or inadvertent Finally; since
the Appellant Appellant wa's was present present at the final-hearing final hearing and knew its provisions, he did did- act with
wrongful int6ht. when be wrongful intent he undertook prohibited actions.. prohibited actions.
presented. evidence of direct and intentional contact made The Commonwealth presented ade via
.email..and email and indirect indirect contact made via Instagram lnstagram post post- on four foul of the seven seven. cases.« cases.l4.This This
intentional contact alone would be sufficient. sufficient to violate the no contact. contact provision of the
PFA. However, the communications also included.threats FA. However, included threats of harm, either direct or or.
implied, which violated implied, violated the provision provision that Appellant was was not to threaten Ms. Ms. Solomon. SoloiMon.
The eiridence presented The evidence - presented- on these.four these four cases was sufficient to establish beyond beyond aa
reasonable doubt that that Appellant: violate ' at least one Appellant did willfully violate one. provision of the PFA PA
order, as it prohibited him. him from any contact with her and from threatening her.
Two of the cases tried on December Decernber 29, 2021 were transferred from Washington 2021
County, Pennsylvania. County, Pennsylvania. 15 Ms. Solomon Solomon testified that she moved to that county comity on March..1,. March 1,
2021., and that she afterward 2021, afterward. received private Facebook messages from an account that
Appellant had Appellant used while they had used they were still together. The account had the same profile
14 CP-26-MD-0oa0oo5-2021 4CP-26-MD 0000005-2021 (681 (681 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-0000006-2021 CP-26-MD-00006o6=2021 ((68068o WDA 2022), CP-26-MD 2022);:CP-26-MD- 0000432-2020 (676 0000432-2020 (66 WDA CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682 WDA 2022); and CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 2022) (68 WDA 2022) •5 CF-26-MD-440-2021(678 4(P-26-MD-440-2021 CP-26-MD-441 =2021 (677 (678 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-441-2021 06.77 ti1'DA WDA 2022)
Page: li:of Page n of 15 photo of Appellant Appellant as was on the Instagram profile profile she knew to belong belong to him. She
accessed the accessed the.inessages messages on her mobile on her mobile phone phone during during her testimony and her testimony and.read them aloud:l read them aloud.66
She.also'testified She also testified that the messages were in a a single thread,*not thread, not individual messages, and individual messages,
that that they they were April. 2o, were dated April 20 22021 2o2i and May 4,2 May 4, 02-1. The 2021. The'messages messages included included statements
such such as as "You ruined my life so so 'I.fully I fully intend to end yours," yours;" "When "When IIget Sterling for good, get Sterling good,
.you'll you'll see who ivlio gets the last laugh," laugh," "If there's one thing the Army me,- it -is to make Army taught me,
count," "FYI every shot count," FYI it's aafree country country: an8 and I colne wherever . I can ,come IZ. want. You. your You and your
cops can't help help you:" you."
.11'Is. Ms. Solomon's credible testimonial testimonial evidence as. to evidence as to the source and and content content of the the
messages was sufficient to.establish to establish beyond beyond aareasonable doubt that that Appellant Appellant did
willfully willfully violate violate at least one at least one provision provision of of the:PFA order as the PFA order as it prohibited him it prohibited him from any from any
contact with her and from threatening her.
The only case that did.not email:or did not involve email or social media evidence was an incident
that occurred January Janua ry *28, 17Ms. Solomon testified that she was returning 2021.7 2S;2021. returning home in
her vehicle between 1o:oo a.m. a. m. and. lo::30:a.m. when she..saw an 1o:30 Appellant in his car, she saw Appellant car, dxiVing driving
toward toward her on the her on the street iyhere her street where her House was located. house was located. She She attempted attempted to to follow him while follow him while
she called she called police, but she police, but she was was unable unable to keep him to keep him .in in sight sight for for very long as very long as he*was he was
traveling at aahigh rate of speed. speed. Upon: Upon returning to her street., street, she waited for a a police police
officer to arrive -before approaching her house. house, Wh en. she did so, she saw that her mail, When mail;
which typically was delivered between 9:30 9:so a.m. a. fn. and lo: oo.a:m., 1o:oo a.m., had been taken out of
her nlailbox -and her mailbox and one one piece piece of of mail mail was was torn.open: torn open: an an envelope containing FBI envelope containing FBI
background clearances that she needed for. employment'. In addition, her front'i.vindow for employment. front window
• (, .Hard Hurd copies of the the messages were.no.t transferYed..avcr were not transferred with;the over with case. files fron7•washington' the case from Washington Count) County,. "CP-26-MD -96 =2021 (679 €P-26-MD-96-2021 (679 WDA 2022) 2.022)
Page i2:of 2of15 15 was cracked, and the'locks the locks were broken off.8 off.ls Ms. Ms. Solomon testified that,based that, based on on
AppelIant's Appellant's address as it was listed on custody papers, he did not live on that street, nor,
to her knowledge,:did knowledge, did any of his friends. or family live on the street. This court found Ms. friends or
Solomon's testimony to to:be the: circumstantial evidence sufficient to be credible and the to. find
Appellant guilty beyond aareasonable doubt doubt of violating at least one dne*pro•rision provision of the-PFA the PFA
order as it it prohibited him from being at Ms. Solomon's house and from stalking, stalking,.
harassing, or tlireatening..her. threatening her.
The*evidence The evidence presented at all seven cases was was sufficientfor sufficient for conviction. The
pr irisions.of provisions of the* the PEA PA were unmistakably clear, particularly the provision ordering that' provision ordering that
Appellant:not Appellant not have. have any contact with with Ms. Ms. Solomon.. Solomon. Appellant was. was present at the final final.
hearing, and aiid therefore.he therefore he had notice of the the. PFA and its provisions.:As provisions. As there .was adequate
authentication tliat that the emails and messages that Ms. Ms. Solomon received received .had been sent by
Appellant and theycontained they contained specific statements directed toward her, there is no doubt -
own.volition. they were sent of Appellant's own volition. Finally, knoNiring knowing the provisions provisions`of PFA.as of the PFA as
clearly acted with wrongful intent when undertook prohibited actions. he did, Appellant clearly a&ion .
The'eviden6e The presented'neither evidence presented neither contradicted physical facts nor contravened human hurnan
and . the laws of nature, and i experience and itiisufficiently supported supported. conviction on all charges. charges
Weight Weight of the Evidence Evidence Appellant argues in his second issue that this..Court's verdict.was this Court's verdict was against against the
weight of Elie eN idence. An appeal on the evidence. on. the the weight of evidence can succeed succeed only only.by by showing' showing
that the: court "`acted the trial court "acted capriciously or palpably palpably abused its discretion." Choma Chornu V, v. IYer, ler, S*i A.2d 238, 871A.2d 2 3°x. 243 243 (Pa. oo5) (citation. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2oo5) oni.itted). The remedy of a (citation omitted). a verdict
Ms. Solomon clarified that all Ms. Is al' the.:Mndows the windows in.her house%had [ her house had been installed incorrectly so that the locking tie locking mechanisms were outside instead ofof inside. inside.
Page 13 of. of 15 against against the weight of the weight of evidence. evidence is. is .aa new new trial trial "so so that that right right may may be given another be given another
opportiinityto opportunity Thompson v. City of to prevail." 'Thompson ofPhiladelphia, x}93 A.2d 669, Philadelphia, 493 6.6 9, 672 672 (Pa. x985). (Pa. 1985).
In Inaajury juryArial, [t]lie decision trial, "[t]he of whether decision of wlaether to grant grant a new trial a new trial based upon aaclaim based upon claim that the that the
verdict is against the weight verdict is:agains#-the of the weight of the evidence evidence rests rests. with with the the trial trial court." court." Choma, Choma, * 871 871 A.2d A.2d
243, "A challenge.io at 243."Achallenge to the weight the.evidence weight of the evidence is directed to the discretion of the trial: trial
judge, who judge, who heard heard the sane evidence the same evidence and who possesses and who possesses only narrow authority only narrow authority to upset a to upset a
Juryverdict." Commonwealth v. jury verdict." Commonwealth Sanchez, 36 v. Sanchez, 36.A.3d 24, 39 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2.oii) (internal (a. 2011) citation. (internal citation
.0 mitted). In ajury omitted). . trial, if aajury reaches ajury trial, reaches. aaverdict that that "shoclzs "shacks one's sense . . of justice, justice," a 11.a
trial. trial judge:lids. judge has some authority to grant authority to grant;relief, relief, Id. Id,
However, because an accused does not have right to a have the right a. jury jury`trial trial on aacharge charge of
indirect contempt, in such proceedings, indirect criminal contempt, proceedings, the judge is the the judge the finder fact, the one finder of fact,
that- ""exclusively that exclusively weighs the evidence, weighs the evidence, assesses assesses the the credibility credibility of of witnesses, witnesses., and may and may
choose to choose to beliove ail, part, believe all, or none.of part, or none of the evidence." 23 the evidence." 23 Pa.CS.A. Pa.C.S.A. §8 6114(b)(3); 6114(10(3); Sanchez, Sanchez ;
36 A,3d at 36A.3 at- 39. 39. The credibility of The credibility of a awitness witness includes includes questions questions of of inconsistent inconsistent testi..mbny testimony
motives. Id. and improper motives.
Heave, Appellant Here, argues specifically Appellant argues specifically that that "[ ₹ jhe alleged "[the alleged victim of the Protection victim of
froin from Abuse Order Order- fabricated evidence, lied led under oath, and manipulated the.facts'in the fcts a in
order to order to violate violate Appellant;" Appellant," and that this: and that Court's verdict this Court's was so verdict was contrary to so contrary to the evidence the evidence
as to to *shock one's*sense shock one's sense of justice. Appellant's Statement at Appellant's Concise Staterrient at 118-g. 8 9.
challenge. this Court's assessment of the credibility These claims challenge credibility of of `Ms.. Ms. Solomon's
testimony as well as testimony as the weight of the evidence presented. presented. This Court considered both. both the
and Ms. Solomon's digital.evidence and Solomon's.testimony gave appropriate testimony and gave weight to each, appropriate weight each.
Despite Despite Appellant's Appellant's claim. claim that that Ms. lied under Salomon lied Ms. Solomon under oath, her testimony simply was her testimolly'siinply was
not so so inconsistent or obviously deceptive as would support such aa.claim.. As.discussed, claim. As discussed,
Tage;14 Of 15 Page 14 of the emaiis emails and social media messages admitted into evidence were adequately adequately
and.there authenticated, an there is nothing in in the record to.show to show any any of the evidence was
fabricat6d or that fabricated that.false false. , testimony was given.. given. The Commonwealth was was. the only party to only party
offer evidence; the defense did did.not not call witnesses or present present any contradictory evidence any contradictory
for consideration. consideration,*The guilty. verdicts The guilty verdicts here wei•e were not against the weight evidence, and weight of evidence,
they were not.capricious 5llock one's not capricious or unfounded, nor do they shock tine's sense of justice justice.
CONCLUSION
The .verdicts The verdicts rendered.in rendered in the above-captioned matters were based on sufficient
evidence to show Appellant intentionally violated at least one provision provision of the.PFA order.. the PFA order
They also were based based. on on*a,carefizl a careful consideration of the the.weight weight of. of the evidence to prove prove the. the
.violations violations and on digital evidence that had been adequately authenticated. This. This Court
respectfully requests that the judgments be AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED:
BY THE COURT:
ATTEST; N,C_ ATTEST: <66.EC..- Linda Linda R. •Z_ , Cordaro,.Judge R. Cordaro, Judge Cleric of Co
August 20 . 22- 1, 2022
c - 0
+ U A4 Lo r co=» Un te - a.
-...-.' ' 2±.. ¢
83 . 0o eo -.. ,_,u4..
- < aeaAce i le e t.< Page 18 Page 1,5d 8 of 15