Opinion ID: 2272370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right to Counsel in a Contempt Proceeding

Text: Pamela argues that the circuit court erred in entering a judgment of contempt and issuing an order of commitment because the court did not advise her of her right to counsel and did not obtain a voluntary waiver of her right to counsel. Procedural due process requires that in civil, indirect contempt actions, [4] the circuit court must either (1) predetermine that the offense is of insufficient gravity to warrant jail time; or (2) advise the defendant that he has the right to be represented by counsel. State ex rel. Family Support Div.-Child Support Enforcement v. Lane, 313 S.W.3d 182, 187 (Mo.App.2010). Unless the contemnor knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel, he or she must be given adequate opportunity to obtain representation. Cheatham v. Cheatham, 101 S.W.3d 305, 309 (Mo.App. 2003) (internal citations omitted). In criminal cases, a knowing and intelligent waiver requires that a defendant be timely inform[ed] as to the nature of the charges against him, potential sentences if convicted of the offenses, potential defenses he can offer, the nature of the trial proceedings. . . and the dangers of proceeding pro se.  State v. Black, 223 S.W.3d 149, 154 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting City of St. Peters v. Hodak, 125 S.W.3d 892, 894 (Mo. App.2004)). See also section 600.051, RSMo 2000. The contempt defendant similarly must be informed of what is being alleged, the possible consequences of the contempt proceeding, the nature of trial proceedings in a contempt proceeding and what the defendant is giving up by waiving the right to counsel. [5] See generally Hunt v. Moreland, 697 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Mo.App. 1985). Dennie agrees Pamela had the right to counsel but argues Pamela waived her right to counsel. He asserts that Pamela appeared on October 28, 2009, without counsel and was advised by the circuit court of her right to counsel. The circuit court then granted her a continuance so she could obtain counsel. On December 14, 2009, the parties again appeared before the circuit court. Dennie asserts that, at that point, Pamela informed the court that she was ready to proceed without an attorney. This Court is faced with the problem that none of what Dennie asserts is reflected in the record. As noted previously, the record contains only (1) the court's judgment of contempt stating that Pamela waived counsel; (2) the judge's statement at the beginning of the hearing that [Pamela] is present in person, pro se. And there was some conversation at the bench before we started the record; and (3) Pamela's comment at the end of her testimony that Well, like I said, I didn't have the money for an attorney. . . . This is not enough for an appellate court to determine that Pamela knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to counsel. The record reflects, therefore, that the circuit court erred in failing to advise Pamela of her right to counsel and to determine that she made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver on the record. The judge and any counsel present for an opposing party should ensure that a party is advised on the record of his or her right to counsel and make sure that any waiver of this right is made on the record.