Commonwealth v. Umoh

311 A.3d 24

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Emaediong UMOH, Appellant

No. 1464 WDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued November 15, 2023

Filed: February 14, 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 8, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-MD-0006278-2022, Anthony M. Mariani, J.

Lee M. Rothman, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Daniel A. Vernacchio, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.^*

OPINION BY COLINS, J.:

Appellant, Emaediong Umoh, appeals from a judgment of sentence, that the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County imposed for direct criminal contempt.¹ On direct review, he asserts that the lower court abused its discretion by holding him in contempt and erred by proceeding to sentence him without first announcing his guilt for contempt. Upon careful review, we remand this matter for the limited purpose of allowing the sentencing court to correct a clerical error in the sentencing order and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence in all other respects.

The lower court summarizes the relevant facts as follows:

[Appellant] was originally charged with sexual assault crimes. Immediately prior to the jury’s entering the courtroom to deliver the verdict, this Court gave explicit instructions to everyone in the courtroom that they could not act out in any way in reaction to the verdict. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. Upon the verdict being read in open court, [Appellant] loudly slapped counsel table four times in the presence of the entire courtroom including, but not limited to, the jury, the alleged victim, the prosecutor, defense counsel, the gallery[,] and this Court. This Court convened a summary hearing as to whether [Appellant] was guilty of contempt.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/23, 1.

At the start of the summary hearing, the lower court remarked:

THE COURT: Mr. Umoh, let me make a record here. While we were hearing -- right after the jury announced its verdict of not guilty on all counts you started slapping the table very loudly, acting in a manner as though you were, in my view, at some sports stadium, showing total disrespect to the jury, to the victim who was sitting in this room, whether you consider her a victim or not, to the Court. That’s not the way we do things in this room.

You have been here multiple days. I told everybody to stay seated for certain decorum. You are a law student and that’s the way you acted. It is not all about you. I am going to sentence you to some jail time for your conduct. That’s the Court’s intention.

N.T. 12/8/22, 2-3. In response, defense counsel spoke to the court about Appellant’s entitlement to a hearing on the contempt charge and the court explained that it was providing its outlook at the start of the hearing before any formal ruling was lodged:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I believe he is entitled to a hearing on it. THE COURT: He is having one right now in the presence of the Court. He is having his hearing.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, you indicated it was a summary contempt proceeding, and I think my client should have an opportunity to express himself.

THE COURT: I’m telling him -- I am giving him fair notice of how I, see it before I do anything.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I thought you were making a ruling. I misunderstood you.

THE COURT: That’s why I had him sworn in. He can certainly present. You can too.

N.T. 12/8/22, 3.

Appellant, when given an opportunity to speak, apologized for his actions addressed by the court:

[Appellant]: First off, I want to express my apologies. What I did was completely -- it was unacceptable. Not only, Judge, as a defendant but somebody -- as you said, as a law student -- somebody who plans on in a few years being in front of you as an attorney. I need to hold myself to a higher standard. I was raised better than that. I am better than that in terms of my conduct. And, like you said, in terms of the prosecution and in terms of the victim, regardless of whether I view the victim or not, I need to hold myself to a higher standard, as well as the jury who spent hours deliberating on this verdict and listening to your instructions. I should hold myself to the same standards as everybody in this room in terms of holding myself to the same standards and conduct. There is no excuse. There is no reason. There is no explanation. All I can do is look you in the eyes the best I can and tell you as a man I apologize. And whatever decision you make I will have to hold myself accountable to, because this is a court of accountability.

N.T. 12/8/22, 3-4. His counsel then argued that his acts of slapping the counsel table were involuntary given his circumstances at the time of the reading of the verdict. Id. at 6 ("And I think that it has been bottled up inside him for three years and when he heard those words of not guilty he couldn’t control those emotions from coming out."), 8 ("But I think it is -- it has happened as a result of the pressure he has been under in trying to keep himself composed. And he was unable to do that. And I believe the act was involuntary."), 9 ("…it was not a knowing, intelligent or voluntary act on his part but more of an emotional response to his situation and predicament.").

The lower court issued its ruling and sentence at the conclusion of the summary hearing, as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Umoh, you took the stand in your own behalf. You did, I thought, a very, very good job. You have a very good lawyer. I’m sure he spent time prepping you. But one of the things you said is, I’m in law school, I’m doing this, I’m doing that. And now your lawyer says, ["]Well, Judge, think of the pressure. He is trying to finish law school.["] Well, if you are so confident about yourself, if you are so understanding of the process because of your unique position of being a law student while in a trial, it is not unreasonable, I think to hold you to a standard that comports with your education, your position. What you did there, you made this -- you turned this into Acrisure Stadium, PNC Park[,] or whatever other arena you want to -- sports arena. You are a sports guy. It is in vogue now for everybody in the NFL -- they score touchdowns, they do dances, they go sit up in the stands with the fans. Even when they are losing 30 to nothing if they happen to score it is, ["]Oh, [l]ook at me, [l]ook at me, [l]ook at me.["] A defensive lineman makes one sack, gets up and does a celebration even if his team is losing by four touchdowns. ["]Look at me. Look at me.["] That’s what you did. You did a ["]Look at me. I won. Look at me, I won,["] in the face of the prosecutor, in the face of the victim. Again, that’s a term that I am using generically because you were acquitted. But in the face of the jury that straggled with this, that at one point, as you know, was at an impasse. And this is your reaction.

The last time somebody acted out in this room in an inappropriate way I found them in contempt[,] and I sentenced them [to] 5 to 10 days in the county jail. That’s the same sentence you are getting today.

You are hereby sentenced to a sentence of 5 to 10 days in the county jail effective immediately.

N.T. 12/8/22, 10-12; see also Sentencing Order, 12/8/22, 1.

Appellant filed a counseled notice of appeal and a request for nominal bond pending appeal on the date of the contempt hearing.² On the next day, he filed, through counsel, an amended notice of appeal and a post-sentence motion for reconsideration.³ This Court later directed coun- sel for Appellant to show cause as to why the instant appeal should not be quashed as premature, as there was no indication on the trial court’s docket that Appellant’s post-sentence motion was ever decided. Rule to Show Cause Order, 2/27/23, 1-2.

Appellant responded, proffering a copy of an order denying the post-sentence motion on December 12, 2022, and notifying this Court that the trial court had updated its docket to reflect the denial of the post-sentence motion. Response to Rule to Show Cause Order, 8/7/23, 1-2. As a result, this Court discharged the rule to show cause order. Order, 3/9/23, 1-2.

Appellant presents the following questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in finding Appellant in summary direct criminal-contempt where there is no evidence that Appellant acted with intent to obstruct the proceedings, or that Appellant’s actions obstructed the administration of justice when he spontaneously hit counsel table four times in quick succession after being fully acquitted of rape charges?

2. Whether the trial court erred by sentencing Appellant without pronouncing a verdict or making a finding of guilt on the record?

Appellant’s Brief at 2.⁴

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for contempt. Appellant’s Brief at 8-16. He concedes that his conduct constituted misconduct in the presence of the trial court, but he argues that the evidence did not demonstrate that he acted with the intent to obstruct the proceedings by repeatedly slapping the counsel table upon the reading of the acquittal verdict in his prior criminal matter. Id. at 10-13. In the alternative, he argues that the evidence did not support that his actions obstructed the administration of justice. Id. at 13-16.

[1–3] "The determination of whether sufficient evidence, exists to support the verdict is a question of law; accordingly, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963, 969 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Upon sufficiency review, we evaluate "whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial [ ] in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 981 (Pa. Super. 2016) (brackets in...