Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contempt Hearing on August 20, 2001

Text: In a motion for contempt dated August 6, 2001, Bergquist alleged that Cesario mailed threatening letters, forged and served a false subpoena on his employer, and violated the restraining order by driving past his house. The motion was heard on August 20, 2001, and as a result Cesario was again adjudged in contempt and sentenced to the ACI for thirty days. Cesario ascribes numerous errors to this proceeding. Cesario asserts that he never received notice of a contempt motion, contending that he appeared in court that day in response to a witness subpoena duces tecum. He asserts, therefore, that the order finding him in contempt is void and should be vacated. Bergquist counters that Cesario was properly served with notice of the contempt motion, and contends that the court record contains the proof of service. The record, however, does not support Bergquist's contention. A review of the record discloses that Bergquist indeed filed a motion to adjudge Cesario in contempt, yet it was neither stamped by the clerk's office nor referred to on the docket sheet. Moreover, the motion itself does not contain a certificate of service, nor is there an affidavit or any other proof of service in the record indicating that Cesario had been served with a copy of the motion before he appeared in court on August 20, 2001. Once again, however, Cesario has failed to provide this Court with the appropriate transcript. Pursuant to Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is appellant's responsibility to order and file a transcript of such parts of the proceedings    as the appellant deems necessary for inclusion in the record. If the appealing party fails to provide a sufficient transcript, the Court cannot perform a meaningful review and has no choice but to uphold the lower court's findings. State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858, 861 (R.I.1998). We have said on numerous occasions that the deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky business. Unless the appeal is limited to a challenge to rulings of law that appear sufficiently on the record and the party accepts the findings of the trial justice as correct, the appeal must fail. 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates, LLC, 799 A.2d 279, 282 (R.I. 2002) (per curiam). Without a transcript we are unable to determine whether Cesario raised an objection to the motion justice, or whether he may have waived any objection to the alleged procedural defects. We decline Cesario's invitation, therefore, to reverse the motion justice's ruling based upon Cesario's allegation of lack of proper notice. Cesario further asserts that, notwithstanding the hearing justice's designation of his finding as one of civil contempt, the sanction imposed sounded in criminal contempt, thus depriving him of various due process protections, including rights to an attorney, rights against self incrimination, and rights to a jury trial. It does not appear from the record that either party, both of whom appeared pro se, ever reduced the court's order to writing. The only notations in this record are the docket entry that says, DEF FOUND IN CONTEMPT. 30 DAYS TO SERVE. CONT TO 9-19-01 FOR REVIEW and a form entitled CRIMINAL CASE ACTION REPORT/WARRANT FOR COMMITMENT, presumably prepared by the clerk, which clearly says civil contempt. The distinguishing factor between civil contempt and criminal contempt is the punishment imposed. The purpose of the sentence in a criminal contempt is punitive so as to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court. State v. Ricci, 609 A.2d 951, 952 (R.I.1992) (per curiam) (citing Nelson v. Progressive Realty Corp., 81 R.I. 445, 450, 104 A.2d 241, 243 (1954)). In contrast, punishment in civil contempt is remedial and designed to coerce a person into compliance with an order of the court as well as to compensate a party for any losses that may have resulted from another's failure to comply with a valid court order. Id. Here, it is apparent from the record that the motion justice adjudged Cesario in criminal contempt. An unconditional sentence of thirty days is appropriate only for criminal contempt because of its punitive, irredeemable, and unconditional quality. Coolbeth v. Berberian, 116 R.I. 188, 192, 354 A.2d 120, 124 (1976). Because the thirty-day sentence was unconditional, Cesario could do nothing to avoid it. Cesario's sentence was designed neither to compensate Bergquist, nor to coerce compliance, because the sentence included no conditions for release. At issue, therefore, is whether the court followed the proper criminal contempt procedures to provide Cesario sufficient notice that he might receive criminal sanctions for violating a civil court order. It is well settled law that Rule 42(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires notification to the accused that he is being charged with criminal contempt. Coolbeth, 116 R.I. at 196, 354 A.2d at 126. Rule 42(b) provides in pertinent part:  Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing. A criminal contempt    shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the justice in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of an attorney for the State or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. It would appear from a careful review of the record that Cesario did not receive appropriate notice of a motion seeking to hold him in criminal contempt as required by Rule 42(b). As noted above, Cesario maintains that he never received notice of any motion to adjudge him in contempt, civil or criminal. Clearly, the motion that Bergquist filed did not seek criminal sanctions. Even if notice had been given orally in open court, which is unlikely given the aforementioned designation of civil contempt, it is clear beyond peradventure that Cesario was not allowed a reasonable time to prepare a defense. Notwithstanding the lack of a transcript, we are convinced from the record that the contempt hearings of August 20, 2001, were conducted without adherence to the notice requirements of Rule 42(b). Contempt proceedings and adjudications of contempt that were not denominated as criminal cannot result in the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions. City of Pawtucket v. Council No. 70, AFLCIO, Local 1012, 116 R.I. 198, 208, 353 A.2d 607, 612 (1976). In cases in which criminal contempt sanctions are imposed without proper adherence to Rule 42(b), the proper remedy on appeal is to vacate the criminal contempt conviction and remand to the trial court. Coolbeth, 116 R.I. at 196, 354 A.2d at 126 (citing Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 330 U.S. 585, 595, 67 S.Ct. 918, 91 L.Ed. 1117 (1947)). Upon remand, the court may take no action, impose the appropriate civil contempt sanctions, or start criminal contempt proceedings again, this time in compliance with the Rule 42 notice provisions. Id. We conclude, however, that because the contempt motion heard on August 20, 2001, was not labeled criminal, and indeed was designated by the hearing justice as civil, we need not vacate the entire judgment of contempt. The judgment may stand as a judgment of civil contempt; only the criminal contempt sanctions imposed by the judgment must be vacated. See City of Pawtucket, 116 R.I. at 208, 353 A.2d at 612. Cesario also asserts that the Superior Court lacked both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the contempt motion. His argument, however, lacks merit. This action commenced with Bergquist filing a complaint seeking injunctive relief. General Laws 1956 § 8-2-13 vests the Superior Court with exclusive original jurisdiction of suits and proceedings of an equitable character except as otherwise provided by law. On December 5, 2000, Cesario filed an answer to the complaint in which he denied the allegations, but did not contest the court's jurisdiction over him. On that date he also obtained relief from the court in his own right when a mutual restraining order was entered. Clearly the Superior Court had jurisdiction to entertain Bergquist's complaint seeking injunctive relief, and Cesario was a proper party to the action. Moreover, the court retained the authority to hear a motion alleging that its restraining order had been violated and to impose sanctions either to punish such violation or to coerce compliance with the order. The alleged procedural defects, even if true, do not vitiate the court's personal or subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the motion.