Opinion ID: 1436580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Arrington's Case

Text: The disposition in Arrington's case was patently unlawful. He was given a determinate sentence of eighteen months to the Division of Correction, which is a criminal sentence not permitted in a civil contempt case. That kind of disposition cannot be saved by adding a purge, especially when the purge is one that the court must have known Arrington could not immediately meet. The purge was that he enter Dismas House  a correctional facility  and secure full-time employment with earnings withholdings . . . As we indicated, not only was there no indication at the time that Arrington had been or would be accepted into Dismas House  the evidence showed only that he had been found an acceptable candidate for work release  but, even if he would be accepted into the Dismas House program, there was no indication that he could secure full-time employment in time to avoid the incarceration, which is what is required in a civil contempt case. The finding of contempt can stand, but the sanction imposed, even though no longer in effect, must be vacated.