*1
law,
a
of fact and conclusions
discussion
findings
in the case. Rule
the factual and
involved
legal questions
file
days3
specific exceptions
1518 allows the
parties
Rule 1519
Finally
provides
to this adjudication.
or, if
on these
none
pass
exceptions,
court en banc shall
[is]
filed,
shall enter
upon praecipe,
the prothonotary,
necessary
All of these
are
estab-
steps
decree as final.
Accord,
v.
appeal.”
Thompson
lish an
record on
adequate
(1973).
451 Pa.
COMMONWEALTH FERRARA, Ferrara, Appellants. Debra Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued 1979. Oct. Decided Dec. require exceptions be amended to
3. Rule 1518 has since been days. filed within ten *3 Emmons, Defender, B. Gregory Doylestown, Asst. Public for appellants. Harris, B. Asst. Dist.
Stephen Atty., appellee. EAGEN, J., O’BRIEN, NIX, ROBERTS, Before C. and MANDERINO, FLAHERTY, LARSEN and JJ.
OPINION LARSEN, Justice. of the criminal convictions of
This is an appeal wife). and (husband Vincent and Debra Ferrara appellants arose as These convictions follows: On October bad charged deception, each was with theft appellant by date, checks, appellants and criminal On that conspiracy. each released on arraigned was bail. preliminarily bail, “appear As conditions of each was appellant required before . ... at all time as his . . court] [the ordered, directed, until presence be full may required, case, to answer and defend disposition plead, final “to as ordered the aforesaid . . . and to charges” processes submit himself to all orders and court”. required give each Additionally, courts, Attorney written notice to the clerk District of address within 48 any change and court bail agency hours said change.1 23, 1977,
On or about December the clerk of courts sent a notice to the known of each appellant, notifying last address same that was scheduled for arraignment January on January and that trial was scheduled to commence 4, 1978, 1978. On failed January appellants Janu- and so bench warrants were issued. On 23, 1978, for trial and their ary cases were continued. provides perti- Pennsylvania Rule of Procedure 4013 Criminal *4 part: nent bail, person When a is the conditions of the bail bond admitted person shall be that such will: (a) appear issuing authority or court at all times re- before the case; quired disposition until final of the full and issuing authority (b) process submit to all orders and court; courts, (c) authority, give issuing the clerk of written notice to the attorney, agency designated or other court the district and court bail officer, forty-eight any change bail within hours of of address change; the date of such the bench warrants were returned and
On before the lower court. brought Appellant were examined and she testified in pertinent Debra Ferrara was part:
BY MR. PUBLIC EMMONS [ASSISTANT DEFENDER]: why you appear? Will to the Court didn’t Q you explain Honor, A DEBRA Your FERRARA] [APPELLANT I I didn’t I was scared. just appear, there no reason. I arrested not to had never been appear. had no reason arrested, first time I was I was just before. That was the come. scared and I didn’t
BY THE COURT: Did call?
Q you
A No. going happen? What did think
Q you A I don’t know. everyone If did think that
Q appear, you didn’t you would about it? forget truth, you yes.
A To tell of 1978 until Q January Where have been between you of 1979? April
A I lived in Philadelphia.
Q At what address?
A Different addresses.
Q You moved around? A Yes. [Emphasis provided] bail, revoked Debra Ferrara’s The lower court a sixty-day her in and sentenced her to contempt, found imprisonment. then examined and he Vincent Ferrara was
Appellant testified in pertinent part: Honor, Well, Your VINCENT FERRARA]
[APPELLANT wife, I me to on behalf of because speak my first allow what you saying. don’t think she understood *5 of your the time here at appear to reason we failed apartment from our evicted we were is because charges receive notice. we didn’t and time. We at that address a permanent didn’t have We in and down to settle apartment find an to were trying the situation. to did we overreacted finally when we And we didn’t scared. said, we were wife my And like our apart- changed because we date to appear know what ment. appear notice to receive You didn’t
THE COURT: trial? or arraignment either your ad- have a permanent didn’t No, Your Honor. We [A] to place place. from living were that time. We dress at change of your apprise anyone Did you THE COURT: address? the District in and ask to call Well, we were afraid
[A] Attorney. know that didn’t Attorney The District
THE COURT: on January not going you 4th, 1978? we were until know about this No, We didn’t sir.
[A] had a we found out Prison and County Delaware on us. warrant bench I just County. from Bucks notice we didn’t receive
But know wife didn’t my it out because straighten wanted here. This up she was when about talking what she was than her for time, responsible I feel more is her first fault. It’s not her not appearing. she Well, deny least she didn’t at
THE COURT: notice. didn’t receive explain you try I would Well, I told her
[A] than she it better explain I can I believe for her. myself can. receive notice. we didn’t
But mistaken lying, is either Well, wife your THE COURT: because she didn’t said the reason she because was afraid. she truth, We Well, get Your Honor. didn’t this is
[A] mail, that’s the truth. no *6 Well, I believe you. your THE I don’t believe COURT: you notice and wife, I believe that received you appear. bail, Ferrara’s
The revoked lower court him to a four-month him in and sentenced contempt, found imprisonment. their convictions to this contempt now
Appellants appeal Court. contention is that there was insufficient first
Appellants’ convictions. evidence to their Section support 784, 16, 1836, 23, 17 2041 2041 of the Act of June P.S. (1962) provided: this commonwealth of the several courts of power punishments and to inflict summary
to issue attachments the following for of court shall be restricted to contempts cases, to-wit: of the officers of such
I. To the official misconduct courts respectively; officers, neglect by parties, jurors
II. To disobedience or court; to the lawful process or witnesses of or in the of person presence III. the misbehavior of any To of court, obstructing jus- the the administration thereby tice. [Emphasis provided]2 has held that a defendant who
In the
this Court
past,
contempt,
late
can be held in
for trial
intentionally appears
v.
506,
In the instant the last known addresses of courts sent notices to *7 bail), appel on each notifying of whom was released (each of the commencement arraignment of the dates for and lant trial; however, specified on the appellant appeared neither indicates that Debra Ferrara’s Appellant testimony dates. notice, her sole the aforementioned although she received was that on the scheduled dates appear reason for failing even if appellant she was “scared”. Additionally, the aforemen that did not receive Ferrara’s claim his lower court found (the tioned notices was to be believed did incredible), appellants the reason that to be testimony fulfill a because did not they not receive this notice was agreements (namely, notifying condition of the bail there changes). Clearly, authorities of address appropriate finding court’s the lower support was sufficient evidence to of “the or neglect” acted in “disobedience appellants therefore, contempt the court” and their lawful process be affirmed. convictions must fact that next contend Appellants “[t]he was not for an and trial arraignment [they] ” therefore, cannot they in court and open an act committed the Act of 2042 of be Section punished by imprisonment. (1962) 16, 1836, provided: P.S. for as afore- contempt of imprisonment The punishment as shall be contempts to such only said shall extend other shall be court, contempts in and all open committed provided)3 (Emphasis fine punished by only. Black’s Law Dic- is without merit. contention Appellants’ has been court” as one “which “open defines tionary declared for the transactions open convened and formally failure to Appellants’ its business”. proper judicial and for trial were dates for on the scheduled is, in “convened (that in court” a court “open acts committed judicial the transaction of its proper and declared open therefore, their conduct can be contemptuous business”) In the this Court has held past, imprisonment. punished by who refuses to who in court but appears that a witness can be imprisoned can be held contempt testify Strickler, said conduct. Commonwealth contemptuous 589-90, (1978); clearly, Pa. 393 A.2d court) is no (in appearing not even conduct ap- of a witness who less than the conduct contemptuous no lesser deserving and is testify but refuses to pears punishment. even “if the court final contention is that
Appellants’ and sentence them had the to find them power did not them provide the court imprisonment, to a term of This argument and due process rights”. with their statutory were entitled to assumption is based on appellants’ *8 23, of in section 2047 of the Act June the enumerated rights 925, 2047 which provided: 17 P.S. with charged where a shall be person In all cases restraining for violation of a indirect criminal contempt or or judge judges issued a court injunction by order or thereof, enjoy— the accused shall that are accorded to admission to bail
(a) rights The as crime; to accused of persons substantially form effective in the same 3. This statute was reenacted See, (1979 Pamphlet). June 1978. Pa.C.S.A. and a of the accusation to be notified (b) right The defense, alleged the make a provided time to reasonable view or not in the immediate is committed contempt court; of the presence trial demand, right speedy public the to a
(c) Upon judicial the district wherein the of impartial jury an by this provided have been committed shall contempt contempts be construed to requirement apply shall not of court or near thereto in the the so presence committed justice, of with the administration as to interfere directly misconduct, misbehavior, the or disobedience or to apply writs, orders, in to the respect of officer of the court any court; and process for with court a demand the (d) right to file the if the proceeding, in the judge sitting retirement the an character or upon arises from attack the other- such and if the attack occurred judge, conduct of such open filing any wise in court. the Upon than no further but demand, judge proceed the shall thereupon the designated by presiding judge another shall be judge demand be filed the prior of said court. The shall provid- the contempt proceeding. [Emphasis hearing ed]4 appellants section 2047 is
Clearly, inapplicable not on their since convictions were based their contempt Additional restraining injunction. violation of a order or an violated) (the spe section 2041 statute which ly, to “inflict power that the courts have the provided cifically As the contempts court.”5 summary punishments in its is a opinion: statutory lower court stated “[T]here held, defendants basis the herein contempt proceeding at time hearing open they were afforded a court which substantially effective 4. was reenacted same form This statute See, (1979 Pamphlet). 1978. Pa.C.S.A. given Appellants’ were not “fair notice contention charges argument against said them” is without merit since based contempt. assumption their conduct constituted indirect on the fact, contempt. appellants’ In conduct constituted direct *9 402 opportunity furnished the counsel and represented by
were had.”6 they or defenses defense whatever present affirmed. of sentence Judgments ROBERTS, J., dissenting opinion. filed a decision of in the MANDERINO, J., participate did not this case. Justice,
ROBERTS,
dissenting.
appellant
The trial court sentenced
I dissent.
Debra
imprisonment
four months
Ferrara to
contempt.
for criminal
imprisonment
to two months
Ferrara
mandatory
with the
comply
so it failed to
doing
Yet
Review of
Code.
Sentencing
set forth in the
requirements
sentencing judge
the
the record discloses
the crime and
circumstances of
the “nature and
consider
.”
the defendant
.
character,
and condition of
history,
amended,
6,1972,
334,
1325, December
as
1482, No.
Martin, 466 Pa.
v.
Commonwealth
1325.
See
Pa.C.S.A. §
improperly
court acted
(1976) (sentencing
118,