Com. v. Jones, R.
Com. v. Jones, R. No. 643 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Judge Moyle issued a temporary PFA on Oct 13, 2015; Judge Saxton entered a final PFA on Oct 26, 2015 prohibiting Jones from contacting or entering the protected party Deborah Bohn.
- Three indirect criminal contempt complaints were filed: one for presence at Bohn’s residence (Jan 1, 2016), one for a jail phone call (Jan 24, 2016), and one alleging presence at the residence (Jan 23, 2016) plus 39 answered phone calls (out of ~203 attempts) on Jan 23, 2016.
- A contempt hearing on Mar 16, 2016 covered 42 counts; the court found Jones guilty on all counts and imposed three consecutive six‑month county prison terms plus 39 months’ probation and required domestic violence programming and no contact with the victim.
- Jones filed post‑sentence motions, appealed, the Superior Court remanded for a Grazier hearing; Jones waived counsel and proceeded pro se on appeal.
- On appeal Jones argued (1) double jeopardy/overcharging for multiple phone calls, (2) insufficiency of evidence, (3) improper admission of hearsay documents, and (4) ineffective assistance/ due process from alleged delay in scheduling the PFA violation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charging 39 separate counts for phone calls violated double jeopardy | Each answered phone call was a separate violation of the clear no‑contact PFA and may be charged separately | The 39 phone calls amounted to one incident of harassment and should be a single charge | Waived below; court also held each answered call was a separate contact and counts were proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 42 contempt convictions | PFA was clear, Jones had notice; testimony and records established volitional, wrongful contacts and presence, including assault and threatening jail call | Evidence did not establish all elements beyond a reasonable doubt for all counts | Evidence, including volume/timing of calls and testimony, was sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Admission of victim’s telephone records (hearsay) | Proper foundation was laid to admit the records | Admission violated hearsay rules because no applicable exception applied | Hearsay objection not raised at trial and is waived on appeal |
| Ineffective assistance / procedural due process from alleged untimely PFA hearing scheduling | Hearing was initially scheduled within statutory time; Jones requested continuances; counsel’s performance not shown on record | Counsel failed to object to jurisdiction/timeliness, depriving Jones of due process | Claim premature/waived for direct appeal and properly raised under PCRA; record shows hearing timely scheduled and claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 393 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1978) (standards for a defendant waiving counsel and proceeding pro se)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements required for indirect criminal contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2002) (deference to trial court factfinding in contempt cases)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (PCRA is the usual vehicle for ineffective assistance claims raised after appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (narrow exception where trial court held and decided ineffective assistance claims)