Case Information
*1 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. 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 CP- -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. vacate and remand.
The factual background procedural history of this as follows. 24, 2014, was to pay costs, fees, restitution stemming from two convictions retail theft. Appellant failed make required payments and, therefore, hearing held on March 24, 2015. At that hearing, Appellant agreed a payment plan. failed comply with the payment plan's terms. Thus, second hearing was held on October 30,
At the October one witness testified, however, not permitted witness. See N.T., * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court *2 10/30/15, at -9. 2015, the trial court found Appellant in civil contempt him imprisoned until he purged contempt, or for a maximum period of days to 6 months.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. This Court remanded this case 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 not given the opportunity to offer a defense?
Appellant's Brief at
After Appellant filed his brief, the parties filed a joint application seeking remand a new contempt hearing. agree with the parties that entitled a new hearing. In order comply with the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process during civil defendant must have a full fair opportunity any witnesses offered against him or her. See Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'/ Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, (Pa. Super. 2016). As noted above, this 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
J-S77028-16 *3 vacate the order finding Appellant remand further proceedings consistent with this Judgment Order.
Application remand granted. Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
/
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 11/8/2016
