Opinion ID: 1058278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Singleton v. Commonwealth

Text: Darrell P. Simpson retained attorney Kenneth L. Singleton to represent him in an appeal of a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence. The matter was originally set for trial on August 30, 2007 in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk. Prior to trial, Singleton contacted the prosecutor assigned to the case regarding a continuance. The prosecutor and Singleton agreed to a continuance of the case to September 27, 2007. The prosecutor then prepared a continuance order and called off his witness in the case. On August 28, 2007, the prosecutor and Singleton met and signed the continuance order. Thereafter at Singleton's direction, his office informed Simpson that he did not need to appear in court for his original trial date. On August 30, 2007, the prosecutor appeared in the circuit court and requested entry of the continuance order. The court rejected the order in light of the fact that neither Singleton nor his client was present. Singleton, Simpson, and the prosecutor subsequently appeared before the circuit court on September 12, 2007 for a bond hearing. [1] At that time, the court asked Singleton: What authority do you have to excuse a person from court? Singleton answered by indicating that the parties had agreed on a date to continue the case. The court asked again: What authority do you have to excuse someone from court without a judge entering an order? Singleton answered: None, Your Honor. The court then found Singleton in contempt of court, fining him $250. In his defense, Singleton explained: I know I have no authority as a judge to excuse anyone from court, but as an officer of the court, I did believe, in good faith, that after speaking with the Commonwealth['s] Attorney, we had agreed on a date. The circuit court replied: You do understand that nothing you talk about between counsel is an order until a judge says it's an order, right? Singleton responded that he had signed the continuance order and that he was unaware the continuance order was not entered. The court concluded the hearing with an admonition that Singleton should never excuse a client from appearing on a scheduled trial date without knowing that a judge has in fact given approval for a continuance. The circuit court entered a final order on September 13, 2007, finding Singleton guilty of contempt of court pursuant to Code § 18.2-456. In the final order, the court handwrote the following after the contempt charge: [i]ntentional [i]nterference with [the] administration of justice by willfully & knowingly failing to appear for a court appearance without prior court approval and further, advising his client not to appear resulting in an arrest warrant being issued for the client's arrest. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Singleton argued the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of contempt because there was no evidence of contemptuous intent. Singleton also argued that the trial court denied him due process by erroneously employing summary, rather than plenary, contempt procedures. In a published opinion, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed Singleton's conviction, holding that by not appearing on the original trial date and advising his client not to appear on that date, Singleton undermined the trial court's authority to control the court's docket and schedule criminal cases for trial. Singleton v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 665, 671, 667 S.E.2d 23, 26 (2008). The Court of Appeals also held that Singleton was precluded from raising for the first time on appeal the argument that he should have received the procedural protections associated with plenary contempt. Id. at 672-73, 667 S.E.2d at 26. We awarded Singleton an appeal.