Title: In re Sanger

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1
Filed 3/14/02   (second contempt judgment under this docket number)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
In re ROBERT M. SANGER on Contempt. )
——————————————————)
THE PEOPLE,
)
)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
)
)
S009038
v.
)
)
RICHARD DEAN TURNER,
)
)
San Bernardino County
Defendant and Appellant.
)
Super.Ct.No. vcr 807
__________________________________ )
THE COURT
On October 19, 1988, in San Bernardino County Superior Court, defendant
Richard Dean Turner was sentenced to death.  On September 12, 1991, Attorney
Thomas L. Riordan was appointed as lead counsel to represent defendant Turner
in his automatic appeal and any related habeas corpus proceedings; on June 26,
1992, Attorney Robert M. Sanger was appointed as associate counsel to represent
defendant Turner in the same capacity.  The record on appeal was certified on
July 6, 1999, and includes a reporter’s transcript of 4,675 pages and a clerk’s
transcript of 3,303 pages, including approximately 1,755 pages of juror
questionnaires.  By letter on that same date, the court informed Riordan and
Sanger that the appellant’s opening brief was due on August 16, 1999.  The court
2
thereafter granted requests for extensions of time to file appellant’s opening brief
on August 20, 1999, October 21, 1999, December 23, 1999, February 28, 2000,
April 18, 2000, and July 3, 2000.
On August 25, 2000, we granted Riordan and Sanger’s seventh request for
an extension of time to file the opening brief “to and including October 13, 2000,”
but stated in our order:  “No further extensions of time are contemplated.”
On October 24, 2000, we granted an eighth request for extension of time to file the
opening brief “to and including December 12, 2000,” but stated in our order:  “No
further extensions of time will be granted.”  On December 12, 2000, Riordan and
Sanger filed a ninth request for extension of time to file the opening brief, which
the court denied on December 20.
In a declaration filed February 2, 2001, Sanger stated to the court he had
“agreed to take over the full responsibility for the drafting and filing of the briefs
and the handling of the direct appeal” from Riordan.  He requested the court
reinstate the briefing schedule and grant an additional six months in which to
submit the appellant’s opening brief, which he deemed “the most reasonable
manner to actually accomplish the work to be done . . . as quickly and
professionally as possible.”  On February 22, 2001, the court denied the request
for extension of time.  On February 21, 2001, Riordan sought to withdraw and
“substitute in” Sanger as lead counsel.  On June 13, 2001, the court denied the
request “without prejudice, subject to the filing of a new and different application
to withdraw after the filing of the appellant’s opening brief and associate counsel
Sanger’s filing of a request to be designated as lead counsel of record.”
On June 27, 2001, we directed that appellant’s opening brief “shall be filed
on or before July 31, 2001.”  Our order further warned that “[i]f the brief is not
filed by that date, the court will consider issuing an order directing appellant’s
counsel, Thomas L. Riordan and Robert M. Sanger, to show cause before this
3
court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, why counsel should not be held in
contempt of court and further payments suspended or other sanction imposed for
their delay in the appellate process occasioned by the eight extensions of time to
file the brief thus far granted.”
Riordan and Sanger did not file the opening brief on or before July 31,
2001.  On August 15, 2001, the court issued an order for Riordan and Sanger to
show cause before this court on a date to be determined in November 2001, “why
they should not be held in contempt of court for the willful neglect of their duty to
file the appellant’s opening brief in this case, which we previously ordered to be
filed on or before July 31, 2001.”  The court also ordered Riordan and Sanger to
file a return on or before September 7, 2001.  Both attorneys filed a timely return.
Riordan and Sanger appeared before the court on November 7, 2001, and
were afforded an opportunity to explain why they had not complied with the
court’s June 27, 2001, order.  Following the hearing, the court adjudged Riordan
in contempt of court and vacated his appointment as counsel.  (In re Riordan
(2002) 26 Cal.4th 1235.)
The court continued the contempt proceedings regarding Sanger to its
March 2002 oral argument calendar upon Sanger’s representations that he would
submit “a complete draft” of the appellant’s opening brief to the California
Appellate Project by the end of February 2002.  Sanger failed to submit “a
complete draft” of the appellant’s opening brief to the California Appellate Project
by the end of February 2002.
Sanger appeared before the court on March 6, 2002, and was afforded an
opportunity to explain why he had not submitted a complete draft by the scheduled
date.
The court finds Sanger has not complied with the court’s June 27, 200l,
order and has not complied with the court’s ruling of November 14, 2001.  The
4
court also finds Sanger was aware of and had the ability to comply with that order
and ruling, and his failure to do so was willful.  Willful failure to comply with an
order of the court constitutes contempt.  (In re Grayson (1997) 15 Cal.4th 792,
794; Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).)
Sanger’s failure to comply with the June 27, 2001, order of this court and
with its November 14, 2001, ruling is an act occurring within the immediate view
and presence of the court within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section
1211, and constitutes a direct contempt.  (In re Grayson, supra, 15 Cal.4th at
p. 794.)
The court finds Robert M. Sanger guilty of contempt of this court.  Having
been adjudged in contempt of the California Supreme Court, Robert M. Sanger is
ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.
Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, the clerk is
directed to notify the State Bar of this action by forwarding to the State Bar a copy
of this judgment of contempt.
Robert M. Sanger is ordered to complete a full draft of appellant’s opening
brief in this case and submit it to the California Appellate Project on or before
April 5, 2002.  He is further ordered to complete appellant’s opening brief in this
case and lodge it with the court on or before May 6, 2002, along with a request for
relief from default and for permission to file the brief.  If the completed brief is not
lodged with the court on or before May 6, 2002, the court will consider issuing an
order directing Robert M. Sanger to show cause before this court, when the matter
is ordered on calendar, why he should not be held in contempt of court a second
time and sanction imposed, including the possibility of incarceration, for his
continuing delay of the appellate process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).)
Robert M. Sanger is ordered to appear before the court at its May 2002 oral
argument calendar at a time and date to be specified.
5
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion In re Sanger on Contempt
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding XXX
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S009038
Date Filed: March 14, 2002
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court:
County:
Judge:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Robert M. Sanger, in pro. per.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for  Respondent:
6
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Robert M. Sanger
Sanger & Swysen
233 E. Carrillo Street #C
Santa Barbara, CA  93101
(805) 962-4887