Com. v. Goad, D. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S77028-16 NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DAVID ALPHONSE GOAD Appellant No. 255 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 55 -CR- 0000147 -2011 CP- 55 -CR- 0000413 -2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ. FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2016 JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J: Appellant, David Alphonse Goad, appeals from the order entered on November 2, 2015. We vacate and remand. The factual background and procedural history of this case is as follows. On November 24, 2014, Appellant was ordered to pay costs, fees, and restitution stemming from two convictions for retail theft. failed to make the required payments and, therefore, was held on March 24, 2015. payment plan. Thus, a a Appellant contempt hearing At that hearing, Appellant agreed to a Appellant failed to comply with the payment plan's terms. second contempt hearing was held on October 30, 2015. At the October 30, 2015 hearing, one witness testified, however, Appellant was not permitted to cross -examine the witness. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court See N.T., J-S77028-16 10/30/15, at 7 -9. On November 2, 2015, the trial court found Appellant in civil contempt and ordered him imprisoned until he purged the contempt, or for a maximum period of 15 days to 6 months. Appellant filed timely pro a notice of appeal. This Court remanded se this case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant wished to be represented by his court -appointed counsel or if he wished to proceed pro se. Appellant chose to be represented by counsel, who filed a brief on his behalf. Appellant presents one issue for our review: Did error occur where Appellant was not given the offer a opportunity to defense? Appellant's Brief at 5. After Appellant filed his brief, the parties filed seeking remand for Appellant is a a joint application new contempt hearing. We agree with the parties that entitled to a new contempt hearing. In order to comply with the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process during a civil contempt hearing, a defendant must have a full and fair opportunity to cross -examine any witnesses offered against him or her. See Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'/ Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 77 (Pa. Super. 2016). As noted above, in this case Appellant was not provided the opportunity to cross -examine the lone witness offered against him. Thus, we conclude that Appellant's constitutional right to due process was violated. Accordingly, we -2 J-S77028-16 vacate the order finding Appellant in contempt and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Judgment Order. Application to remand granted. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. / J seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary Date: 11/8/2016 -3 Order vacated. Case remanded.
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.
