Aрpellant, Darren L. Felder, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his conviction for Criminal Contempt
Lisa Felder, Appellant’s wife, obtained a Final Protection from Abuse Order (“PFA Order”) against Appellant, which is effective from December 19, 2014 through December 18, 2017. The PFA Order states that Appellant shall not abuse, hаrass, stalk, or threaten Ms. Felder but does not limit other contact between Appellant and Ms. Felder. After obtaining the PFA Order, Ms. Felder continued to live with Apрellant, and both of them resided with a roommate, Joyce Brown.
On August 11, 2016, after a bench trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of Criminal Contempt for Violation of a PFA Order and subsequently sentenced Appellant to a term of six months’ reporting probation.
Appellant timely appealed. On October 11, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant tо file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (“1925(b) Statement”) and Appellant failed to comply. On November 16, 2016, Appellant filed an Application for Remand with this Court requesting an opportunity to file a 1925(b) Statement nunc pro tunc. On December 12, 2016, this Court granted Appellant’s Application for Remand and ordered Appellant to file a 1925(b) Statement. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court errеd as a matter of law in finding Appellant guilty of violating a non-eviction, [PFA] Order, where there was insufficient evidence of intent to do so?
2. Whether the trial cоurt erred as a matter of law in finding Appellant guilty of violating an abuse/protection only [PFA] Order (23 Pa.C.S. [§ 6114(a)]) where the evidence was insufficient to establish а violation of the terms of the Order?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted);
In both of his issues, Appellant avers that the evidence was insufficient to prove Criminal Contempt for Violation of а Protection from Abuse Order. See Appellant’s Brief at 3. We review a contempt conviction for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Haigh,
This Court has repeatedly stated that “[t]he purpose оf the PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence from those who perpetrate such-abuse, with the primary goal of advance prеvention of physical and sexual abuse.” Commonwealth v. Lambert,
In order to establish indirect criminal contempt, the Commonwealth must prove: “1) the order was sufficiently definitе, clear, and specific to the contemnor as to leave no doubt of the conduct prohibited; 2) the contemnor had notice of the оrder; 3) the act constituting the violation must have been volitional; and 4) the con-temnor must have acted with wrongful intent.” Commonwealth v. Walsh,
Here, Appellаnt concedes that the PFA Order was clear, that he had notice of the PFA Order, and that he acted of his own volition. See Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.- Nonetheless, Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove indirect criminal contempt because Appellant did not .-act with “wrongful intent;” rather, his intent was to close the door. Id. at 8. Appellant further argues that his “conduct was insufficient to be considered abuse” because it was not “reckless or intentional” but rather “an encounter over a lpcked-front door.” Id. at 8-9.
There is no dispute that the PFA Order in question stated Appellаnt shall not “abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten” Ms. Felder. The PFA Act defines abuse, in pertinent part, as “[attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury[.]” 23 Pa.C.S § 6102. The trial court found both Ms. Felder and Ms. Brown’s testimony to be “credible” and- “corroborated” and determined that Appellant’s actions of twisting and manipulating Appellant’s fingers until they “became numb, painful, and swollen” rose to the level of abuse as the actions were intentional and caused bodily injury to Ms. Felder. Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/18/17⅛ at unpaginated 7.
The trial court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Aрpellant had the “wrongful intent” to establish indirect criminal contempt: “[A]ppel-lant’s wrongful intent is demonstrated by the testimony of the witnesses as there is no othеr valid explanation for his conduct,” Id. Indeed, although Appellant argues that it was his intent to close the. door rather than harm Ms. Felder, the record rеveals-that the door remained closed, and was never opened, during the entire altercation between Appellant and Ms. Felder.
.We will not rе-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. See Brumbaugh, supra at 109. Our review of the record reveals , that the evidence presented at trial supports the trial court’s conclusions. The Common-. wealth
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Notes
. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6114.