In Re: Linda A. Hampton
| Docket Number: | 2004-KM-01089-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-05-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Criminal contempt - Notice - Judge’s role - Impartiality of judge - Excessive fines - Procedure - Probable cause - Findings Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J., and Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-03-2004 Appealed from: Winston County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Conviction of Criminal Contempt and Sentence of Three (3) Days in the Winston County Jail; Pay a fine of $100; Pay Restitution in the Sum of $1,500 in Attorney's Fees to Gary Street Goodwin, Esq.; and Pay Restitution in the Sum of $283.75 to the Court Reporter, Mike Segura; and Pay Court Costs of $425.00 District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2003-222-CVL |
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Criminal contempt - Notice - Judge’s role - Impartiality of judge - Excessive fines - Procedure - Probable cause - Findings |
| Summary of the Facts: | Linda Hampton, an attorney for the defendant in a civil case, failed to show up for a hearing in the matter and was later found in criminal contempt of court for failing to appear in the Winston County Circuit Court. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice Hampton argues she was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature and accusations charged against her; specifically neither the circuit court’s subpoena nor the order served upon her gave notice of the contempt charge. Hampton also argues that the court’s failure to provide notice denied her the opportunity to obtain witnesses on her behalf and to retain assistance of counsel for her defense at the contempt proceeding. Since Hampton’s failure to attend the hearing was an act of direct criminal contempt, the direct contemnor may be summarily punished because no evidence other than the court’s own knowledge is required as the conduct was committed in the presence of the court. Therefore, Hampton was not entitled to notice nor was she entitled to a hearing on the contempt matter. Nevertheless, the circuit court issued an order commanding Hampton to appear on September 3 in order to explain her absence. The circuit court did in fact provide Hampton with notice and an opportunity to show cause as to why she was absent from the August 27 hearing. Hampton was allowed several opportunities to present a reasonable excuse for her absence from the hearing a week prior. Hampton was also permitted to call and examine a number of witnesses to demonstrate her absence was for good cause. Issue 2: Judge’s role Hampton argues that the judge should not have acted as the trier of fact. Direct criminal contempt may be handled by the sitting judge instantly. Therefore, it was proper for the judge to summarily punish Hampton after determining that her absence was willful and not for good cause. Issue 3: Impartiality of judge Hampton argues that the judge was partial, biased, and engaged in ex parte communications with counsel opposite. However, Hampton did not object to the judge hearing the contempt matter, nor did she move for the judge to recuse himself. Therefore, Hampton’s failure to object to the circuit judge’s appearance results in a waiver of this argument. Issue 4: Excessive fines Hampton argues that the judge imposed excessive fines by ordering her to pay attorney fees, witness fees, and court reporter fees. Hampton failed to object and argue this issue in the circuit court. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred. In addition, the punishment levied against Hampton was within the confines of the applicable statute. The award of attorney’s fees was proper since the circuit court expressly decreed that Hampton’s actions were willful, deliberate and contumacious. Issue 5: Procedure Hampton argues that the court erroneously violated her due process rights when the court found her in contempt rather than simply dismissing her motion for summary judgment. Hampton’s due process rights were preserved, as the circuit court judge afforded Hampton the notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before finding her in contempt. Therefore, the judge appropriately found Hampton in contempt of court. Issue 6: Probable cause Hampton argues she was deprived of her right to be secure in her person against unreasonable seizures without probable cause when the circuit court prosecuted, convicted, fined and sentenced her to jail without probable cause. Hampton was never arrested nor searched, thus Hampton’s contentions of an unreasonable seizure are without merit. Furthermore, Hampton failed to present this claim in the circuit court; therefore, it is procedurally barred and deemed waived. Issue 7: Findings Hampton argues the judge failed to set out material facts of her contempt of court in his judgment of conviction. The circuit judge judiciously preserved a very thorough and complete record, and this record is more than sufficient to support the court’s finding of contempt. In addition, the judgment of conviction clearly and explicitly enumerated the judge’s basis for finding Hampton in contempt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
