Com. v. Formica, R. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S58033-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RICHARD FORMICA Appellant No. 524 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 17, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-14-04906; ICC-15-0003 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2015 Appellant, Richard Formica, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction of indirect criminal contempt.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: WAS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT [APPELLANT] WAS GUILTY OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WHERE [APPELLANT’S] MOUTHING OF ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6114(a). _____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S58033-15 INAUDIBLE WORDS DURING A COURT PROCEEDING WAS DE MINIMIS, NON-THREATENING AND DONE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED WRONGFUL INTENT? (Appellant’s Brief at 4). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Merrill M. Spahn, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 21, 2015, at 6-8) (finding: Appellant had been advised of Protection from Abuse order and had requirements thoroughly explained to him; despite order not to interact with victim, Appellant looked at victim and directed comments at her at January 7, 2015 hearing; victim testified at January 27, 2015 hearing that Appellant stared at her at January 7, 2015 hearing and whispered words that sounded like “fuck you,” and that Appellant’s comments caused victim extreme concern because Appellant “scares [victim] to death”; Officer Joel Ayers testified at January 27, 2015 hearing that he observed Appellant look at victim during January 7, 2015 hearing and mouth something inaudible such as “why” or “what,” which caused victim to become distraught and to start physically shaking and trembling; despite inconsistency in testimony as to Appellant’s exact words, there is no doubt Appellant stared at victim and said something that immediately made victim anxious and fearful; Appellant’s comments served no legitimate purpose and, given history -2- J-S58033-15 between Appellant and victim, were threatening or intimidating in nature; Commonwealth v. Haigh is factually distinguishable because infraction in Haigh was de minimis and non-threatening in nature and was insufficient to establish any wrongful intent by defendant; conversely, Appellant’s comments were made to influence victim, intimidate her, or blame her for circumstances in which Appellant found himself as result of his actions; based upon totality of circumstances and credibility of witnesses, Appellant’s comments and actions were volitional in nature and made with wrongful intent, which is sufficient to sustain conviction for indirect criminal contempt).2 The record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/15/2015 ____________________________________________ 2 The following errors appear in the trial court’s opinion: (a) page 5, paragraph 3, lines 2-3, Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174 (Pa.Super. 2013) should be (Pa.Super. 2005); (b) page 8, paragraph 3, line 2, Estepp, 17 A.3d at 934-44 should be at 944. -3- Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM Circulated 09/22/2015 02:51 PM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
