Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout895 S 1995REBECCA A. HYLE, PLAINTIFF V. LOGAN B. HYLE, DEFENDANT IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., August 25, 2004:-- On July 26, 2004, Logan B. Hyle was adjudicated in contempt for failure to pay child and spousal support. The order of disposition provided: Sentence is that you undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a term of 6 months. You may purge yourself of contempt by making a $2,500.00 payment on account of the order. Work release is authorized. Hyle filed a direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from that order. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, he avers: Following a finding of civil contempt, Mr. Hyle cannot be given a sentence with a purge condition that the Judge is not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he has the present ability to meet. Hyle has a prior appeal from a similar order entered on February 9, 2004, pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.1 The issue here is exactly the same. The reason he was brought before the court again on a new contempt citation (he has remained incarcerated), is that the six month sentence imposed on February 9, 2004, 1 314 MDA 2004. 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) was about to expire and he did not meet the condition of purge. He continued to willfully refuse to go on work release with the specific intent of not paying his support obligation. On April 16, 2004, we filed an opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 in support of adjudication and contempt on February 9, 2004.: Because the issue raised in that adjudication which is pending in the Superior Court is exactly the same as the issue raised here, we incorporate that opinion in support of the current order. On January 3, 2000, an order was entered directing defendant to pay $1,100 per month for support and arrearages for one child, Andrew C. Hyle, born June 2, 1987, and his wife, Rebecca A. Hyle, effective October 15, 1999.4 Defendant was working as a truck driver with a monthly net income of $2,659.90. His wife's monthly net income was $915.10. After the order was entered defendant quit his job and failed to make any payments. On May 15, 2000, defendant was adjudicated in civil contempt and sentenced to undergo a term of imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of six months. Work release was authorized. The condition of purge was that he make a $1,000 payment on account of the order. Defendant refused to go on work release. Since that time, defendant has been adjudicated in civil contempt on November 20, 2000, May 21, 2001, November 19, 2001, April 22, 2002, October 14, 2002, March 13, 2003, August 18, 2003, and February 9, 2004. In each instance he was sentenced to a period in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of six months and work release was authorized. The condition of purge in the order of November 20, 2000, was $1,000. The condition of purge in all subsequent orders was $2,500. Defendant has continually refused to work under the prison work release program. At the latest hearing on February 9, 2004, he testified and acknowledged that he ~The spousal support is $305.66 plus child support of $725.92 plus : 53 Cumberland L.J. 129 (2004). -2- 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) arrearages of $68.42 totaling $1,100. -3- 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) last worked in January, 2000. He testified that he has no assets although he is eligible for retirement at age 58. He is now 49. He has $21 in his prison account. He was asked why he refused to work and he answered, "1 don't want to go to work." When asked, "Why?," he answered, "1 don't want to." When asked was it because he did not want to pay support he answered, "No. I just don't want to go to work." The docketed arrearage at the time of the hearing was $32,386.62. At the end of the hearing we stated: THE COURT: I will set a purge that he can make quickly if he works. He has refused to work. I will enter an order adjudicating defendant in contempt. I will sentence him to a period of six months in the Cumberland County Prison with a condition of purge that he pay $2,500.00, and order work release. Get out on work release. You will have it done, and you will be out soon. Defendant filed a direct appeal from the order of February 9, 2004, to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.2 In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, defendant avers: Following a finding of civil contempt, Mr. Hyle cannot be given a sentence with a purge condition that the Judge is not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he has the present ability to meet. The Legislature, 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4321, provides: (1) Married persons are liable for the support of each other according to their respective abilities to provide support as provided by law. (2) Parents are liable for the support of their children who are unemancipated and 18 years of age or younger. The law provides at 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4345: (a) General rule.--A person who willfully fails to comply with any order under this chapter, except an order 2 The order was amended on March 3, 2004, to correct it to conform accurately with the record of February 9th that work release was authorized. -4- 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) subject to section 4344 (relating to contempt for failure of obligor to appear), may, as prescribed by general rule, be adjudicated in contempt. Contempt shall be punishable by any one or more of the following: (1) Imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months. (2) A fine not to exceed $1,000. (3) Probation for a period not to exceed one year. (b) Condition for release.--An order committing a defendant to jail under this section shall specify the condition the fulfillment of which will result in the release of the obligor. Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.25-5(b) provides: An order committing a respondent to jail for contempt of a support order shall specify the conditions the fulfillment of which will result in the release of the respondent. In Barrett v. Barrett, 470 Pa. 253 (1977), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: [W]here, as here, the court in civil proceedings finds there has been willful noncompliance with its earlier support orders constituting contempt but the contemnor presents evidence of his present inability to comply and make up the arrears, the court, in imposing coercive imprisonment for civil contempt, should set conditions for purging the contempt and effecting release from imprisonment with which it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, from the totality of the evidence before it, the contemnor has the present ability to comply. Since to condition a person's avoidance of or release from imprisonment on his performing acts beyond his power to perform is in effect to convert a coercive sentence into a penal one without the safeguards of criminal procedure, we are of the opinion that the stricter evidentiary standard of the criminal law should apply with regard to the issue of present ability. In the case sub judice, defendant quit his job immediately after a support order was entered on January 3, 2000. We find beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully refused to work before he went to prison and has willfully refused to work since he has been in prison with the -5- 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) specific intent of not paying his support obligation. The $2,500 purge required for him to be released from commitment, which is far less than his arrearages which have grown to over $32,000, is well within his means to accomplish by working for a short period of time. The coerciveness of his civil commitment is to force defendant to work and thereby pay support. In defining the limitations on the power to impose coercive imprisonment as a sentence for civil contempt, the Supreme Court stated in Barrett: Nor do we hold that under no circumstances may an indigent be imprisoned for civil contempt, only that the conditions imposed for purging himself must be within his apparent power to perform. Defendant remains imprisoned not because he is indigent, which he is by his own volition, but because he has willfully violated his duty to pay support and failed to work in order to meet the condition of purge which he is fully capable of complying with.3 Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief. 3Willful failure to comply with a support order when an individual has the financial ability to comply constitutes a summary offense for which a person can be prosecuted under 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4354, which provides: (a) Offense defined.--An individual who willfully fails to comply with a support order of a court of this Commonwealth when the individual has the financial ability to comply with the support order commits a summary offense. The Crimes Code at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 1105, provides: A person who has been convicted of a summary offense may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which shall be fixed by the court at not more than 90 days. (Date) Derek Clepper, Esquire Special Counsel for DRO Edgar B. Bayley, J. -6- 895 SUPPORT 1999 (DR 29,082) Jessica B. Rhoades, Esquire For Defendant :sal -7-