Johnson v. King

1

LAKRESHA JOHNSON v. JONATHAN KING Appellant

No. 2267 EDA 2023

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 20, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered July 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s) C-48-PF-2023-00352.

Benjamin D, Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

BECK J.:

Appellant, Johnathan King ("King"), appeals pro se from the order entered July 25, 2023, by the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas ("trial court") granting the petition filed by his former intimate partner, Lakresha Johnson ("Johnson"), pursuant to the Protection From Abuse ("PFA") Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122.^[1] Finding no abuse of discretion or error of law by the trial court, we affirm.

The record reflects that on April 21, 2023, Johnson filed a PFA petition against King. At that time, Johnson was engaged to Jacob Stettler ("Stettler"). The petition alleged that King posted an old photograph of Johnson on Stettler's vehicle, had a prior physical altercation with Johnson, and had a history of showing up at Johnson's apartment unannounced, harassing Johnson over text messages, leaving copies of fake text messages purporting to be between King and Johnson on Stettler's vehicle, creating fake pages of Johnson on social media, threatening to get Johnson fired from her place of employment, sending Johnson screenshots of postal inspection forms filled out in Johnson's name, threatening to beat up anyone Johnson was dating, and contacting Stettler's family members.

That same date, the trial court entered a temporary PFA order in favor of Johnson and against King. The order prohibited King from contacting, abusing, harassing, stalking, threatening, or attempting to threaten to use physical force against Johnson, and from possessing or acquiring firearms. The order also prohibited King from stalking or harassing Stettler. The trial court initially scheduled a hearing on May 3, 2023, but continued it pending service of the PFA petition on King. Following a hearing on May 17, 2023, the trial court entered a three-year final PFA order against King.^[2] Thereafter, King filed a timely motion for reconsideration, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of abuse and that the trial court abused its discretion in crediting Johnson's testimony and not allowing King a full opportunity to testify and present evidence at the hearing. The trial court granted reconsideration and scheduled a hearing on July 25, 2023.^[3]

The trial court summarized the evidence from the July 25, 2023 hearing as follows:

Johnson testified that she and King had previously dated, and that at the time of filing her [PFA p]etition, Johnson believed King was "stalking" her. Johnson testified that King had been previously physically and verbally abusive to her during the course of their prior relationship. King admitted to a prior "altercation" in March [] 2022. Following the parties' last in-person interaction on or about March 15, 2023, Johnson testified that King began questioning her about who she was dating and if she had become engaged. Johnson stated that she had gotten engaged to another individual in April 2023. Upon Johnson confirming that she had a fiancé, Johnson testified that King began requesting Johnson repay him for things he had purchased during their previous relationship. Immediately thereafter, Johnson's fiancé's car was vandalized, the tires were slashed, and placed on the car was a photo of Johnson depicting a tattoo on her body that King had paid for while they had been together. Johnson testified that the tattoo was private, only something a limited number of people had knowledge of, and only two people besides King had access to the particular photo that was placed on the car. King was provided with an opportunity to cross-examine Johnson about her allegations[. H]owever, King's questioning focused on items he purchased for Johnson in November 2022 and January 2023. King's testimony further focused on his anger that Johnson did not disclose to him that she had entered into a new relationship, e.g., "I don't do things for other dude's girl" and "she never mentioned her fiancé." When the [trial c]ourt directed King to focus on the relevant time frame regarding the allegations of Johnson's petition, and declined to accept hearsay evidence in the form of text messages between King and other individuals not present in court, King began objecting and speaking over the [trial c]ourt. When the [trial c]ourt stated that it found Johnson's testimony that she was in reasonable fear for her personal safety as a result of King's conduct to be credible, King became belligerent to the extent that the courtroom deputies needed to intervene. Both the testimony and demeanor of the parties were appropriately considered by the [trial c]ourt in the entry of the [July 25, 2023 final PFA o]rder.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/2023, at 1-2 (record citations omitted; parties' names supplied).

Following the hearing, the trial court entered a final PFA order, effective for the three-year period from July 25, 2023, to July 25, 2026. The order prohibited King from contacting, abusing, harassing, stalking, threatening, or attempting to threaten to use physical force against her Johnson, possessing or acquiring firearms, and stalking or harassing Stettler. On August 2, 2023, King filed timely motions for reconsideration, dismissal, and recusal, all of which the trial court denied on August 4, 2023. This timely filed appeal followed. King and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, King raises the following issues:

1. Was the final hearing, on [July 25, 2023], held in a timely manner pursuant to the Pennsylvania Code, Title 23, Chapter 61, Sec. 6107(a)?

2. Did the [trial c]ourt violate [King's] 14th [A]mendment rights to due process multiple times during the process of determining the order in question?

3. Did [Johnson] prove the abuse by the preponderance of the evidence and did the [trial c]ourt err in a matter of law and abuse its discretion when ruling that she did?

4. Did the [trial] court show bias towards [King] throughout this process and when determining the order in question?

King's Brief at 11-12 (unnecessary punctuation omitted).^[4]

"In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial court's legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion." K.B. v. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). "An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment, and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917, 925 (Pa. Super. 2013).

In his first issue, King argues that the July 25, 2023 hearing was not held in a timely manner under section 6107(a) of the PFA Act. King's Brief at 17. According to King, when the trial court expressly granted reconsideration on June 15, 2023, the hearing date had to be held within ten business days thereof. Id. at 17-18. He acknowledges that the trial judge was on leave during this time, but claims the same judge did not have to preside over the hearing and that the trial court held other PFA hearings on dates that were within the ten-day timeframe. Id. at 18.

Section 6107(a) requires, in pertinent part, that the trial court hold a hearing within ten business days of the filing of a PFA petition. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). The ten-day period, however, is not unyielding. Section 6107(c) permits the trial court to continue a hearing under subsection (a) and may enter temporary ex parte orders in the interim. Id. § 6107(c). Trial courts have discretion to continue hearings pursuant to section 6107 even where they have already issued a temporary PFA order. Ferko-Fox, 68 A.3d at 926 (stating the trial court's ability to grant a continuance is not dependent upon the absence of a previously entered ex parte order).

The record reflects that Johnson filed her petition on April 21, 2023, and the trial court promptly scheduled a hearing on May 3, 2023, which was within ten business days of the filing and comported with section 6107(a). The trial court continued the hearing to May 17, 2023-ten business days after the original hearing date-after the sheriff was unable to serve King with the notice of hearing, temporary PFA order, and petition. As this Court has held that continuances for the protection of the parties' rights are allowable in other contexts, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court with respect to this brief continuance to allow service on King. See id. (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing hearing beyond ten days provided in PFA Act where continuance allowed plaintiff to retain counsel, who she had tried to retain earlier in the proceedings).

Following a hearing on May 17, 2023, the trial court entered a final PFA order against King. The trial court then granted King's timely motion for reconsideration on May 30, 2023, as clarified by the amended order entered June 15, 2023, and the trial court scheduled a second hearing for July 25, 2023. The trial court explained that this date was its first available hearing date following the trial judge's medical leave. Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/2023, at 1 n.1. The trial court also reinstated the April 21, 2023 temporary PFA order pending the hearing.

We find no abuse of discretion in the scheduling of the reconsideration hearing at the trial court's first available date upon return from leave. See Ferko-Fox, 68 A.3d at 926. Indeed, the very reason there...