Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 8, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-MD-0000604-2013
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
Appellant, Daniel Breon, appeals nunc pro tunc from the April 8, 2013 judgment of sentence of 180 days' incarceration, entered following his conviction for indirect criminal contempt of a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order. After careful review, we affirm.
The factual and procedural history of this case, as ascertained from the certified record, follows. Appellant was subject to a January 28, 2013 PFA order prohibiting, inter alia, any contact with his son, C.D.B. On April 2, 4, and 6, 2013, Appellant appeared at a ball field where C.D.B. was participating in Little League Baseball games. Appellant photographed C.D.B. and made his presence known, which upset C.D.B.
Based on these contacts, Appellant was charged with indirect criminal contempt by criminal complaint issued on April 6, 2013. The trial court conducted an indirect criminal contempt hearing on April 8, 2013, at which Appellant appeared pro se. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of 180 days.
On June 3, 2013, Appellant, now represented by David Crowley, Esquire (Attorney Crowley), of the Centre County Public Defender's Office, filed a motion for reinstatement of Appellant's direct appeal rights. On June 25, 2013, the trial court presided over a hearing on Appellant's motion. Concluding it had not properly advised Appellant of his appeal rights at the time of Appellant's sentencing, the trial court granted Appellant's motion and reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc on July 2, 2013. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 3, 2013. On July 26, 2013, the PCRA court directed Appellant to file within 21 days a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Attorney Crowley filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on Appellant's behalf that same day. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 15, 2013.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
I. Did the [trial] court lack sufficient evidence from which to conclude that defendant violated the underlying protection from abuse order?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
As an initial matter, we must determine if Appellant's Rule 1925(b) concise statement was adequate to preserve this issue on appeal. Appellant's Rule 1925(b) concise statement declared in pertinent part as follows. "The verdict of guilty was not supported by sufficient evidence[.]" Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 7/26/13, at 1, ¶1. Rule 1925(b) provides in pertinent part as follows.
(4) Requirements; waiver.
(i) The Statement shall set forth only those rulings or errors that the appellant ...