Opinion ID: 1926111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Contempt Proceedings

Text: First, respondent argues that a single judge of this court lacks jurisdiction to find contempt or to impose a sentence because contempt proceedings are cases and controversies under Article III of the Constitution and D.C.Code § 11-705(b) provides that [c]ases and controversies shall be heard and determined by [three-judge] divisions of this court. Respondent's argument overlooks the authority conferred by D.C.Code § 11-741(a) to a single judge of this court to punish for disobedience of an order. Judge Retchin, sitting as a designated judge of this court under § 11-707(a), was thereby empowered to act singly in adjudicating and sentencing respondent for violating the court's interim suspension order. This court has upheld a procedurally similar finding of criminal contempt in which a single Superior Court judge, sitting by designation, sentenced a respondent in a disciplinary proceeding after making both findings of fact and conclusions of law. See In re Burton, 614 A.2d 46, 47 & n. 1 (D.C.1992).