Opinion ID: 2624480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Issue 3: The district court committed reversible error in its contempt holdings.

Text: The Harsches' counsel, Rockwell, raises a number of reasons why the contempt order against him should be reversed and, if not, the accompanying monetary sanctions should be reduced. The State simply responds that the district court had jurisdiction to find him in direct contempt for not appearing as the court directed. We need only reach one of Rockwell's arguments, as it is clearly dispositive in his favor: The district court's contempt order is void due to a jurisdictional defect. The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law over which our scope of review is unlimited. Schmidtlien Electric, 278 Kan. at 830, 104 P.3d 378. The district court's contempt ruling was memorialized in an entry of judgment which identified K.S.A. 20-1203 as the basis for the direct contempt. That statute provides: That a direct contempt may be punished summarily, without written accusation against the person arraigned, but if the court or judge in chambers shall adjudge him guilty thereof a judgment shall be entered of record, in which shall be specified the conduct constituting such contempt, with a statement of whatever defense or extenuation the accused offered thereto, and the sentence of the court thereon. (Emphasis added.) As noted, Rockwell repeatedly advised the court of the reasons why neither he nor his clients would appear for the jury trial. However, the journal entry contains no reference as to why he failed to appear, i.e., a statement of whatever defense or extenuation [Rockwell] offered. K.S.A. 20-1203. Kansas appellate courts have held that such a failure to follow the requirements of 20-1203 is fatal; indeed, the defect is jurisdictional and the order therefore void. See State v. Jenkins, 263 Kan. 351, 357, 950 P.2d 1338 (1997) (failure to comply with 20-1203 is jurisdictional); In re Gambrell, 160 Kan. 620, 623, 164 P.2d 122 (1945), reh. denied 161 Kan. 4, 165 P.2d 760 (1946); Wallace v. Weber, 134 Kan. 201, Syl. ¶ 1, 5 P.2d 855 (1931); State v. Williams, 28 Kan.App.2d 97, Syl. ¶ 4, 11 P.3d 1187 (2000); State v. Flanagan, 19 Kan.App.2d 528, Syl. ¶ 4, 873 P.2d 195 (1994). And while counsel's reasons presented to the district court are amply contained in the record on appeal, their presence there cannot cure the defect caused by their absence in the journal entry. Williams, 28 Kan.App.2d at 101-02, 11 P.3d 1187. The decision of the district court dismissing for lack of prosecution the Harsches' appeal of the appraisers' award to that court is affirmed. The decision of the district court holding their counsel in contempt and assessing sanctions is reversed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. McFARLAND, C.J., not participating. HILL, J., assigned. [1]