PA Superior Court: Intent to Violate a PFA Order Can Support a Burglary Conviction

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Bryant, holding that a defendant who enters a residence in violation of a Protection from Abuse order may be convicted of burglary, even when the only criminal intent the Commonwealth proved was the intent to violate the PFA itself. The Superior Court affirmed an aggregate sentence of five and one-half to eleven years’ incarceration. The case is a good example of how a PFA violation, which people often think of as a civil or contempt issue, can quickly become a felony burglary case with significant state prison exposure.

Commonwealth v. Bryant

In the early hours of October 16, 2021, Philadelphia police responded to a 911 call about someone breaking into an upstairs apartment. The resident told the officer that her child’s father, the defendant, had an active PFA order against him and had somehow gotten into the apartment while she was sleeping. The PFA order excluded the defendant from her apartment and prohibited him from contacting her by phone or any other means. The officer could not find the defendant or any signs of forced entry, took her to the station to file a report, and brought her home.

About three hours later, officers received another call about a break-in at the same apartment. This time they caught the defendant coming down the steps from the apartment and arrested him. The next evening, officers responded to a third call. The complainant told them that the defendant was hiding in her daughter’s bedroom closet. The officers ordered him to come out, got no response, opened the closet, and found him there partially unclothed.

The contact did not stop after his arrest. From jail, the defendant continued to reach the complainant through harassing phone calls placed by other people, through letters, and through text messages, photos, and a video sent from a cell phone he managed to obtain while incarcerated. He offered her money to “get the charges dropped” and at other points threatened her. The Commonwealth filed an additional set of charges based on those contacts.

After a consolidated jury trial, the defendant was convicted of burglary and contempt of a PFA order at one docket, and stalking and contempt of a PFA order at the other. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five and one-half to eleven years in prison. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied, and then appealed.

The Burglary Statute and the Intent Issue

A person commits burglary in Pennsylvania if, with the intent to commit a crime inside, he enters a building or occupied structure that is adapted for overnight accommodation at a time when someone is present. The intent element is what distinguishes burglary from criminal trespass.

On appeal, the defendant raised a single issue: he argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of burglary because the only intent the Commonwealth proved was the intent to violate the PFA order, and contempt of a PFA, in his view, is not a “crime” within the meaning of the Crimes Code. He pointed out that contempt under the PFA Act sits in Title 23 (Domestic Relations), does not carry a gradation like felony, misdemeanor, or summary offense, and is not even listed in the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines. He also argued that the PFA Act is essentially civil in nature and that a violation of a civil order should not be enough to turn an unauthorized entry into a felony burglary.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court rejected the argument and affirmed. The Court applied the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Majeed, 694 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1997), which is the controlling case on this issue. In Majeed, the defendant broke into his own marital home in violation of a PFA order that excluded him, sexually assaulted his stepdaughter, and then engaged in an armed standoff with police. The Supreme Court held that he could be convicted of burglary even though he owned the home, and that the intent to violate a PFA order is enough to satisfy the intent element of the burglary statute.

The Majeed Court explained:

The purpose of the [PFA] Act is to prevent domestic violence and, concomitantly, to promote the security of the home. … If the only sanction for [a person’s] unlawful entry were an indirect criminal contempt [charge for violating the terms of a PFA], the purpose underlying the [PFA] Act would be frustrated. Instead, application of the law of burglary (and the consequential restraint of liberty), under these circumstances, advances the purpose of the [PFA] Act by discouraging domestic violence and unauthorized invasions of the home.

The Court added that a violation of a PFA “is a violation of the law, a public wrong, punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both,” and that nothing prevents the Commonwealth from using that violation to satisfy the intent element of burglary. The Superior Court in Bryant treated that holding as binding and applied it directly. Because the defendant knew about the PFA, knew he was not allowed in the apartment or in contact with the complainant, and broke in anyway, the evidence was sufficient to support the burglary conviction.

The Court also pointed out that even if Majeed did not control, the Commonwealth is not required to prove the specific crime a defendant intended to commit once inside. A jury can infer criminal intent from the totality of the circumstances. Here, the defendant broke in repeatedly across two days, including in the middle of the night while the complainant was asleep, and was eventually found hiding in a child’s closet. The Court agreed with the trial court that this conduct supported an inference that he intended to harass and stalk the complainant, which is independently enough to support the burglary charge.

The Takeaway

This case does not change the law, but it is a useful reminder that a PFA case can turn into something much more serious very quickly. Many people view a PFA as just a piece of paper or a civil order. In reality, walking back into a home in violation of a PFA can support a felony burglary charge, and the resulting sentence can be measured in years rather than months. The defendant in this case is serving five and one-half to eleven years.

The case also illustrates how communications from jail can create entirely new and more serious problems. Letters, calls placed through other people, and messages sent from a contraband cell phone were all used here to support additional charges of stalking, contempt, and witness intimidation. Anyone with a no-contact order or an active PFA should assume that every form of contact, including indirect contact through friends or family, can and will be collected by the police and used by the prosecution.

Finally, the case is a reminder that sufficiency challenges in PFA-burglary cases are difficult to win on appeal. Because Majeed already allows the intent to violate a PFA to satisfy the burglary statute, and because a jury can also infer criminal intent from the surrounding circumstances, the real defense work in these cases generally has to happen earlier in the process. That can include challenging identification, contesting how the alleged entry occurred, litigating the validity and scope of the underlying PFA order, and moving to suppress statements or evidence where appropriate.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.