Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hearing on August 31, 2001

Text: On August 24, 2001, Cesario, through counsel, filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence seeking a reduction in his thirty-day sentence for reasons that he was remorseful about his previous actions, which were the subject of his contempt; that he had an otherwise exemplary record; and that he was the owner and sole proprietor of two businesses. The motion was heard on August 31, 2001. Cesario has provided us with only one page of the transcript. It reflects the following statement by the hearing justice: I'm going to reduce the sentence to time served, but as a condition of the reduction I'm reemphasizing you are restrained and enjoined from contacting these children, from circling any house in which they are staying or visiting, or from going to their school or trying to contact them directly or indirectly. On review by writ of certiorari, Cesario challenges the order restraining him from contacting the Bergquist children as being baseless and illegal. He asserts that an appropriate complaint was never filed; rather the hearing justice entered the order sua sponte. Having determined that the hearing justice's judgment of August 20, 2001, may stand as a judgment of civil contempt, we conclude that he was well within his discretionary authority to impose the restraining order both as an independent order and as a means of allowing Cesario to purge his contempt. Indeed, Bergquist, in his motion to adjudge Cesario in contempt, had prayed for such relief, requesting a perminiate [ sic ] No Contact order on him keeping him away from my children    and myself. Moreover, it was the second occasion in less than three months that Cesario had been found in contempt. Certainly the arrow of incarceration was within the quiver of appropriate sanctions available to the hearing justice, provided that Cesario was given the means of purging himself. Here, we find no error in the hearing justice's marksmanship. Although we do not have the benefit of the transcripts of the hearings held on August 20 and 31, 2001, we are convinced from a careful review of the record that the hearing justice had ample evidence before him warranting the imposition of an order restraining Cesario from contacting the Bergquist children. Without a transcript, however, we are unable to review the specific evidence. For the sake of clarity, and in light of the time that has passed since these hearings and the subsequent findings of contempt against Cesario, we vacate the sentence to the ACI in its entirety. The restraining order prohibiting Cesario from contacting [the Bergquist] children, from circling any house in which they are staying or visiting, or from going to their school or trying to contact them directly or indirectly shall remain in full force and effect.