Case Name: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jamin M. CLARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2018-07-18
Citations: 422 P.3d 434
Docket Number: A164223
Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jamin M. CLARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 422
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jamin M. CLARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
A164223
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and submitted June 7, 2018.
July 18, 2018
Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a punitive contempt judgment on 10 counts of punitive contempt. ORS 33.065. The trial court found defendant in contempt on all 10 counts, and it imposed punitive sanctions. Defendant raises two assignments of error on appeal. We reject his first assignment of error without written discussion. On his second assignment of error, we reverse and remand.
In that assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by entering a judgment that refers to the contempt counts as convictions. The judgment lists the contempt counts under the heading "CONVICTION." (Uppercase in original; boldface omitted.) See State v. Larrance , 256 Or. App. 850, 851, 302 P.3d 481 (2013) (reversing and remanding judgment that reflected conviction rather than finding of contempt); State v. Campbell , 246 Or. App. 683, 684, 267 P.3d 205 (2011) (reversing judgment of conviction for contempt because contempt is not a crime). We note also that the judgment is captioned "JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING," which could contribute to the impression that it is a judgment of criminal conviction. (Uppercase in original; boldface omitted.) See ORS 33.105(2) (listing "punitive sanctions"-not sentences-authorized for contempt). The state concedes that "the trial court erred by entering a contempt judgment that referenced a 'conviction.' " We agree and accept the state's concession, and we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment using the language applicable to contempt findings.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court.