214 A.3d 703
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Appellant Sheldon Arrington, a 19‑year veteran juvenile probation officer, was seated in the courtroom to testify in a transfer hearing.
- Courthouse signs prohibit cellphone use; after the judge took the bench Arrington was observed texting.
- The judge instructed Arrington to put the cellphone away; Arrington verbally protested, continued using the phone, and left the courthouse when ordered to exit.
- The defendant’s counsel could not reach Arrington to testify; the judge recused and the case was reassigned.
- The trial court issued a Rule to Show Cause, found Arrington guilty of criminal contempt at a hearing (Arrington apologized but presented no other evidence), and sentenced him to 10 days, later modified to 5–10 days, of incarceration.
- On appeal Arrington challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence—arguing lack of intent to disrupt because his conduct was not loud or belligerent and no active proceedings were occurring; and (2) discretionary aspects of sentencing as excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support criminal contempt conviction | Commonwealth: proof beyond a reasonable doubt showed misconduct in court, knowledge wrongful, and disruption to court authority | Arrington: no intent to obstruct; conduct was not flagrant, not loud or belligerent, and no active proceedings were underway | Affirmed. Court found four contempt elements satisfied: misconduct (phone use, defiance), in presence of court, knew/would know wrongful, and conduct challenged court authority and obstructed administration of justice |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (incarceration vs lesser sanction) | Commonwealth: sentence within statutory bounds for summary criminal contempt and within judge’s discretion | Arrington: incarceration excessive; lesser sanctions available and his conduct did not warrant imprisonment | Affirmed. No substantial question shown; 5–10 day term is within six‑month maximum and not inconsistent with Sentencing Code |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 753 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2000) (deference to trial judge’s contempt power to maintain courtroom authority)
- Commonwealth v. Falana, 696 A.2d 126 (Pa. 1997) (defiance of court’s authority constitutes significant disruption)
- Commonwealth v. Moody, 125 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015) (elements required to sustain criminal contempt conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Marcone, 410 A.2d 759 (Pa. 1980) (contempt power inherent in courts)
- Commonwealth v. Mutzabaugh, 699 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Super. 1997) (frequent court appearances inform awareness of decorum)
- Commonwealth v. Falkenham, 452 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 1982) (requirement that contempt sentence be determinate; sentencing limits)
- Commonwealth v. Mayberry, 327 A.2d 86 (Pa. 1974) (maximum for summary criminal contempt timeline)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2001) (preservation and reviewability of discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)