Com. v. Wright, J., 338 EDA 2014

Jawanda Wright was found guilty of direct criminal contempt on December 5, 2013 after her cell phone sounded in Courtroom 803 despite a courthouse rule requiring devices be powered off and out of sight.
Courtroom signs and oral announcements repeatedly informed visitors of the cell‑phone policy and potential sanctions, including criminal contempt and confiscation.
Wright’s phone was confiscated after it played a tune; she and another woman (Ms. Thomas) were given a summary contempt hearing the same day, with appointed counsel and a colloquy regarding appeal rights.
At the hearing, Wright said her phone went off while she was turning it off; the court found both women obstructed proceedings and held them in direct criminal contempt but imposed no further penalty.
The court retained the phones pending appeal period; Wright and Thomas waived appeal after a colloquy; Wright later moved to vacate the contempt judgment claiming her appellate waiver was coerced as ransom for returning her phone.
The trial court denied the post‑sentence motion; the Superior Court affirmed, finding the waiver voluntary and that the evidence supported contempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wright’s appellate waiver was involuntary/coerced	Wright: waiver was extorted because the court conditioned return of her phone on waiving appeal	Court/Commonwealth: waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary after colloquy and counsel’s agreement	Waiver was voluntary; appellate right waived
Whether evidence was sufficient for direct criminal contempt	Commonwealth: phone use in court violated posted order, obstructed proceedings, supporting contempt	Wright: she was only turning phone off, lacked intent to disrupt and disruption was de minimis	Sufficient: misconduct in court, intent inferred from awareness of rule, and obstruction to court authority established

Commonwealth v. Williams, 753 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2000) (trial court entitled to deference; courts are exclusive judges of contempts)
Commonwealth v. Dosch, 501 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 1985) (right to appeal may be waived only knowingly and intelligently)
Commonwealth v. Durham, 9 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may seize unlawfully used devices)
Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119 (Pa. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Marcone, 410 A.2d 759 (Pa. 1980) (distinguishing direct and indirect contempt; definitions)
Commonwealth v. Moody, 125 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015) (elements required to establish criminal contempt)
Commonwealth v. Falana, 696 A.2d 126 (Pa. 1997) (misconduct and intent standards for contempt)
Commonwealth v. Barnes, 687 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. 1996) (defendant bound by statements made during colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 645 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 1994) (cannot obtain relief by contradicting plea/waiver colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same principle regarding coercion claims after colloquy)