J-A09010-24
2024 PA Super 176
JORDAN WALKER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHAD WALKER : : Appellant : No. 787 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County Civil Division at No(s): AD 2023-75
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: August 9, 2024
Appellant Chad Walker appeals from the June 15, 2023 judgment of
sentence entered by the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas following
his conviction of Indirect Criminal Contempt (“ICC”) for violating a protection
from abuse (“PFA”) order, which barred him from contacting his ex-wife,
Appellee Jordan Walker. Appellant challenges the admission of text messages
and emails, claiming that Appellee failed to authenticate the digital evidence.
Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders1 Brief and a petition to withdraw as
counsel. After careful review, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s petition to
withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
The following is the relevant factual and procedural history. On
February 22, 2023, the trial court entered a PFA order prohibiting Appellant
from contacting Appellee except through “AppClose or another agreed upon ____________________________________________
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J-A09010-24
co-parenting program” regarding issues relating to their then-three-year-old
daughter. PFA Order, 2/22/23.
On April 25, 2023, Appellee filed her first petition for ICC, asserting that
Appellant contacted her in violation of the February 2023 PFA Order. Based
upon the parties’ agreement in which Appellant admitted to violating the
February 2023 PFA Order, the court adjudicated Appellant guilty of ICC but
did not impose any penalty. Order, 5/12/23. The court entered an amended
PFA order barring all contact and extending the expiration date to May 11,
2026. PFA Order, 5/11/23.
On June 5, 2023, Appellee filed a second ICC petition, asserting that
Appellant violated the May 2023 PFA Order by sending text messages and
emails. On June 7, 2023, Appellee filed a third ICC petition, claiming that
Appellant had contacted her after receiving service of the June 5th ICC petition.
On June 15, 2023, the court held a hearing to address the ICC petitions,
at which Appellee testified regarding the text messages and emails. Appellant
objected to the admission of the screenshots of the text messages and printed
copies of the emails, asserting that Appellee failed to authenticate the digital
evidence, which Appellant denied writing. The court overruled Appellant’s
objections, finding that Appellee’s testimony sufficiently authenticated the
evidence.
On the same day, the court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him
on both ICC petitions. In regard to the June 5th petition, the court imposed a
fine of $300 and 6 months of probation with restrictive conditions, requiring
-2- J-A09010-24
“the first 30 days to be served in the Crawford County Correctional Facility to
be followed by 60 days on house arrest/electronic home monitoring with the
remaining portion of the sentence to be served on probation supervision.”
Order, 6/15/23. On the June 7th petition, the court imposed a fine of $300
and a sentence of 6 months of probation to be served consecutively to the
sentence imposed for the June 5th petition.
On June 28, 2023, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Subsequently, Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
In the Anders Brief, Appellant’s counsel, J. Wesley Rowden (“Counsel”),
raises the following question before this Court:
Did the [c]ourt abuse its discretion in [a]dmitting accounts of [s]ocial [m]edia upon the testimony of the purported victim?
Anders Brief at 4. Counsel additionally filed a petition to withdraw as counsel,
to which Appellant has not responded.
A.
Initially, we address Counsel’s petition to withdraw, as we “may not
review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request
to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super.
2010). The Supreme Court requires counsel to satisfy the following
requirements before a court will grant withdrawal; counsel must:
(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record;
(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;
-3- J-A09010-24
(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and
(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Counsel must
also provide the defendant with the requisite notice of his intent to withdraw
by “furnish[ing] a copy of the brief to [the] defendant and advise him of his
right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se[,] or raise any additional points
that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.” Commonwealth v.
Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
We conclude that Counsel has satisfied the relevant criteria by setting
forth the facts and procedural history, as well as Appellant’s claim, and
explaining Counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is “frivolous[.]”
Anders Brief at 6. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the merits of the issue
raised by Appellant’s Counsel and conduct “a full examination of the
proceedings and make an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is
in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5 (citation omitted).
B.
As Appellant challenges the admission of evidence, we reiterate “that
decisions on admissibility are within the sound discretion of the trial court and
will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law.”
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 283 A.3d 814, 817 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation
omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment,” rather
a court abuses its discretion when “the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
-4- J-A09010-24
judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.]” Id.
(citation omitted).
Appellant’s challenge involves the authentication of evidence, which is
governed by Pa.R.E. 901. Rule 901 requires a proponent of “an item of
evidence” to authenticate it by producing “evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Pa.R.E. 901(a). In
2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Rule 901 to address the
authentication of digital evidence, including text messages and emails. as
follows:
(b) Examples. The following are examples only--not a complete list--of evidence that satisfies the [authentication] requirement:
****
(11) Digital Evidence. To connect digital evidence with a person or entity:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A09010-24
2024 PA Super 176
JORDAN WALKER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHAD WALKER : : Appellant : No. 787 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County Civil Division at No(s): AD 2023-75
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: August 9, 2024
Appellant Chad Walker appeals from the June 15, 2023 judgment of
sentence entered by the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas following
his conviction of Indirect Criminal Contempt (“ICC”) for violating a protection
from abuse (“PFA”) order, which barred him from contacting his ex-wife,
Appellee Jordan Walker. Appellant challenges the admission of text messages
and emails, claiming that Appellee failed to authenticate the digital evidence.
Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders1 Brief and a petition to withdraw as
counsel. After careful review, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s petition to
withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
The following is the relevant factual and procedural history. On
February 22, 2023, the trial court entered a PFA order prohibiting Appellant
from contacting Appellee except through “AppClose or another agreed upon ____________________________________________
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J-A09010-24
co-parenting program” regarding issues relating to their then-three-year-old
daughter. PFA Order, 2/22/23.
On April 25, 2023, Appellee filed her first petition for ICC, asserting that
Appellant contacted her in violation of the February 2023 PFA Order. Based
upon the parties’ agreement in which Appellant admitted to violating the
February 2023 PFA Order, the court adjudicated Appellant guilty of ICC but
did not impose any penalty. Order, 5/12/23. The court entered an amended
PFA order barring all contact and extending the expiration date to May 11,
2026. PFA Order, 5/11/23.
On June 5, 2023, Appellee filed a second ICC petition, asserting that
Appellant violated the May 2023 PFA Order by sending text messages and
emails. On June 7, 2023, Appellee filed a third ICC petition, claiming that
Appellant had contacted her after receiving service of the June 5th ICC petition.
On June 15, 2023, the court held a hearing to address the ICC petitions,
at which Appellee testified regarding the text messages and emails. Appellant
objected to the admission of the screenshots of the text messages and printed
copies of the emails, asserting that Appellee failed to authenticate the digital
evidence, which Appellant denied writing. The court overruled Appellant’s
objections, finding that Appellee’s testimony sufficiently authenticated the
evidence.
On the same day, the court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him
on both ICC petitions. In regard to the June 5th petition, the court imposed a
fine of $300 and 6 months of probation with restrictive conditions, requiring
-2- J-A09010-24
“the first 30 days to be served in the Crawford County Correctional Facility to
be followed by 60 days on house arrest/electronic home monitoring with the
remaining portion of the sentence to be served on probation supervision.”
Order, 6/15/23. On the June 7th petition, the court imposed a fine of $300
and a sentence of 6 months of probation to be served consecutively to the
sentence imposed for the June 5th petition.
On June 28, 2023, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Subsequently, Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
In the Anders Brief, Appellant’s counsel, J. Wesley Rowden (“Counsel”),
raises the following question before this Court:
Did the [c]ourt abuse its discretion in [a]dmitting accounts of [s]ocial [m]edia upon the testimony of the purported victim?
Anders Brief at 4. Counsel additionally filed a petition to withdraw as counsel,
to which Appellant has not responded.
A.
Initially, we address Counsel’s petition to withdraw, as we “may not
review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request
to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super.
2010). The Supreme Court requires counsel to satisfy the following
requirements before a court will grant withdrawal; counsel must:
(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record;
(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;
-3- J-A09010-24
(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and
(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Counsel must
also provide the defendant with the requisite notice of his intent to withdraw
by “furnish[ing] a copy of the brief to [the] defendant and advise him of his
right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se[,] or raise any additional points
that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.” Commonwealth v.
Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
We conclude that Counsel has satisfied the relevant criteria by setting
forth the facts and procedural history, as well as Appellant’s claim, and
explaining Counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is “frivolous[.]”
Anders Brief at 6. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the merits of the issue
raised by Appellant’s Counsel and conduct “a full examination of the
proceedings and make an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is
in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5 (citation omitted).
B.
As Appellant challenges the admission of evidence, we reiterate “that
decisions on admissibility are within the sound discretion of the trial court and
will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law.”
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 283 A.3d 814, 817 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation
omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment,” rather
a court abuses its discretion when “the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
-4- J-A09010-24
judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record[.]” Id.
(citation omitted).
Appellant’s challenge involves the authentication of evidence, which is
governed by Pa.R.E. 901. Rule 901 requires a proponent of “an item of
evidence” to authenticate it by producing “evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Pa.R.E. 901(a). In
2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Rule 901 to address the
authentication of digital evidence, including text messages and emails. as
follows:
(b) Examples. The following are examples only--not a complete list--of evidence that satisfies the [authentication] requirement:
****
(11) Digital Evidence. To connect digital evidence with a person or entity:
(A) direct evidence such as testimony of a person with personal knowledge; or
(B) circumstantial evidence such as:
(i) identifying content; or
(ii) proof of ownership, possession, control, or access to a device or account at the relevant time when corroborated by circumstances indicating authorship.
Pa.R.E. 901(b)(11)(B) (emphasis added). The comments to the Rule explain
that “[t]he proponent of digital evidence is not required to prove that no one
else could be the author. Rather, the proponent must produce sufficient
evidence to support a finding that a particular person or entity was the
-5- J-A09010-24
author.” Id. cmt. Authentication may be established through circumstantial
evidence including “self-identification or other distinctive characteristics,
including a display of knowledge only possessed by the author.” Id.
Moreover, as we have previously stated, “authentication requires a low burden
of proof[.]” Jackson, 283 A.3d at 818.
C.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the text
messages and emails allegedly sent by Appellant to Appellee in violation of
the PFA. Anders Brief at 7. At the hearing, Counsel claimed that the 2020
amendments to Rule 901 altered the authentication requirement for digital
evidence to require production of “the actual text message from the provider
of the service[,]” rather than allowing authentication through “just
circumstantial evidence[.]” N.T., 6/15/23, at 6, 10-11.2
The trial court rejected this claim. The court recognized that a
proponent of evidence could satisfy Pa.R.E. 901(b)(11)(B)(i) solely by
presenting “identifying content,” without having to prove the requirements of
subsection (B)(ii), which Appellant seemed to be referencing, which requires
“proof of ownership, possession, control, or access to a device or account.”
Trial Ct. Op. at 3-4.
Applying Rule 901(b)(11)(B)(i), the court found that the emails and text
messages included “identifying content.” Regarding the text messages, the ____________________________________________
2 In the Anders Brief, Counsel acknowledges that “the trial court correctly
applied the law.” Id. at 7.
-6- J-A09010-24
court observed that Appellee testified that the sender identified himself by the
nickname she had called him during their marriage and referenced the PFA by
stating that he would say the same things to her “some day in person if [she]
would allow [him].” Id. at 3 Addressing the emails, the court noted that the
emails mentioned their daughter, Appellant’s drug and alcohol problems, and
the effect they had on the marriage. Appellee also testified that she
recognized Appellant’s “writing style in the emails.” Id. The court observed
that Appellee had not been married to, had children with, or filed a PFA against
anyone other than Appellant. Thus, the court found that Appellee’s testimony
provided “sufficient identifying content to satisfy authentication pursuant to
[Rule 901(b)(11)(B)(i)].” Id.
We agree that Appellee’s testimony provided sufficient identifying
content to authenticate the text messages and emails pursuant to Rule
901(b)(11)(B)(i). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in allowing the admission of the evidence. Moreover, after
conducting an independent review, we found no non-frivolous appellate
issues. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm
Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7- J-A09010-24
DATE: 08/09/2024
-8-