Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Contempt Hearing on December 10, 2001

Text: Cesario next challenges the court order of December 10, 2001, finding him in contempt for sending threatening correspondence to the guardian ad litem. Cesario mailed a $500 check to the guardian in payment of the court-ordered counsel fee on or about October 30, 2001, and included a handwritten note saying, Witness tampering is against the law. You will pay dearly next year. He now argues that there was no order preventing him from corresponding with the guardian, and, in any event, that he has a right under the First Amendment to contact her. Thus, he contends, there was no evidence, testimony, or basis for a finding that a previous court order was violated. Cesario, in a somewhat disjointed supplemental memoranda [ sic ], [4] asserts that he was not restrained and enjoined from contacting the guardian; rather, the hearing justice made only a vague statement that he did not remember, nor would a reasonable person think that a no contact order statement was issued. It would appear that the crux of Cesario's argument is that no valid restraining order was issued on October 22, 2001, prohibiting him from contacting the guardian, and that even if the court attempted to issue such an order, it did not comport with Rule 65(d) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which says, Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts sought to be restrained   . The record indicates that two motions were before the court on December 10, 2001. Cesario's Motion to Vacate Nunc Pro Tune the Order of August 20, 2001, which was denied, and Bergquist's motion to adjudge Cesario in contempt of the purported restraining order of October 22, 2001. In his motion, Bergquist averred that on October 22 the court admonished [Cesario] and specifically informed him that he could not interfere with [Bergquist] or [his] children by harassment of or contact with professionals or other individuals involved in the children's lives. [5] Again, because Cesario has not provided this Court with any transcripts relevant to the hearing on December 10, 2001, we are unable to review the court proceeding that resulted in the contempt finding. This Court's review on a writ of certiorari is limited to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed. State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I.2002) (per curiam) (quoting State v. Gautier, 774 A.2d 882, 886 (R.I.2001)). This Court will not weigh the evidence presented below, but will rather inspect the record to determine if any legally competent evidence exists therein to support the findings made by the trial justice. Id. Here, as noted previously, Cesario has not provided an adequate record for this Court's review. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the hearing justice on the December 10, 2001 finding of contempt.