Court Opinion

ID: 9751387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:23:34.38949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:44.455019
License: Public Domain

FICKLING, Associate Judge:
This is an appeal from a contempt conviction based on appellant’s failure to return to court after a lunch recess during a trial in which he was the defendant. Because this court is without jurisdiction to decide the case, the appeal is dismissed.
On November 14, 1974, a trial was begun in Superior Court in which the appellant was charged with petit larceny. During the morning of the following day, both sides rested and the case was submitted to the jury. Although the jury reached its verdict by 11 a. m., the court reconvened at 1:30 p. m. and, at that time, was informed that appellant was not present. After receiving the jury’s verdict in the appellant’s absence, the court ordered that a bench warrant be issued for his arrest.
On December 16, a week after the appellant was back in custody, the court held a “show cause” hearing which resulted in appellant’s being found guilty of contempt. On December 18, appellant filed notice of appeal, and on January 20, 1975, he was sentenced to 30 days on the contempt conviction and 360 days on the petit larceny conviction, both sentences to run concurrently.
The government contends that this appeal was filed prematurely and, therefore, must be dismissed by this court for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.
In the instant case, the appeal was taken from the trial court’s adjudication of contempt but before sentence was announced. The decision appealed from lacks the finality requisite to confer appellate jurisdiction.
D.C.Code 1973, § 11-721 (a), provides in pertinent part:
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of appeals from—
(1) all final orders and judgments of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia . . . . [Emphasis added.]
A decision in a criminal case is final for appellate purposes only when the litigation between the parties is terminated and nothing remains but enforcement by execution of what has been determined. To create finality in a criminal case, it is necessary that there be a judgment of conviction followed by a sentence. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937); accord, Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169, 84 S.Ct. 298, 11 L.Ed.2d 229 (1963). In Berman, supra, 302 U.S. at 212, 58 S.Ct. at 166, the Supreme Court said, “Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Since an adjudication of contempt, in and of itself, is not an appealable decision,1 this court has no jurisdiction. See Langley v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 277 A.2d 101 (1971).
We must respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague’s statement that “no good purpose is served by our holding” in this case. This policy to limit appeals to those taken from final orders is particularly strong in criminal cases where “delays and disruptions attendant upon intermediate appeal are especially inimical to the effective and fair administration of the criminal law.” Di Bella v. United States, *506369 U.S. 121, 126, 82 S.Ct. 654, 658, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962).
Moreover, even if we could consider this as an appeal from the final judgment in the case, we would still be compelled to dismiss since the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. In the instant case, the notice of appeal was filed on December 18, 1974, more than a month before sentencing.
It is well settled that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). Our local rules of court provide:
Notice of appeal in a criminal case shall be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court within ten days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken unless a different time is specified by the provisions of the District of Columbia Code. A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, sentence or order but before entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof. [D.C. App. R. 4 11(b) (1); emphasis added.]
Since by the very terms of the above rule, a notice of appeal must be filed within ten days after entry of the judgment, we clearly lack jurisdiction over the instant appeal. This is consistent with United States v. Mathews, 462 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1972), wherein the Third Circuit held that it was without jurisdiction to decide a prematurely filed appeal. The Mathews court, interpreting Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) from which our own Rule 4 11(b) was taken, stated flatly that “[a]n appeal may not be taken until after the pronouncement of sentence.” Id. at 183, quoting Corey v. United States, supra, 375 U.S. at 172, 84 S.Ct. 298.
Our dissenting colleague argues that this court is bound by the holding of Belton v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 259 F.2d 811 (1958). In that case, the District of Columbia Circuit held inter alia that under Fed.R.Crim.P. 37(a)(2), it had jurisdiction to review a judgment of conviction even though the notice of appeal was filed after the verdict but before sentencing. We find that this court is not bound by the Belton decision.
First we find no authority for the proposition advanced by our dissenting colleague that this court, in interpreting its own procedural rules, is bound by the interpretation given to similar federal procedural rules by the District of Columbia Circuit Court, M. A. P. v. Ryan, D.C. App., 285 A.2d 310 (1971), the case cited in the dissent, does not require such adherence by this court. Moreover, we would note that the federal rule interpreted in Belton was amended in 1966, nine years after that decision.2 D.C.App.R. 4 *50711(b)(1) incorporates these later amendments, further weakening any precedential value of Belton. Accordingly, we decline to follow Belton, and instead agree with the holding in United States v. Mathews, supra.
Finally, our dissenting colleague is of the opinion that the premature appeal in this case should be permitted pursuant to the following language in D.C.App.R. 4 ii (b)(1):
A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, sentence or order but before entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.
After a careful review of the history of Rule 4 11(b)(1) and its precursors,3 we find inescapable the conclusion that, in the context of this case, the above language covers only that narrow span of time between the oral announcement of a sentence by the court and the written entry in the court docket of that sentence. The rule cannot be construed to allow a notice of appeal to be filed after conviction but before the announcement of the sentence by the trial court.
Although we do not decide the remaining issues, we have examined them and believe that they are without merit.

Dismissed.

. Our dissenting colleague notes that an adjudication of contempt, like a verdict, is a “decision” properly reviewable in this court upon proper filing. We would say only that neither an adjudication of contempt nor a verdict is an appealable “decision” prior to sentencing.

. As it stood prior to the 1966 amendments, Fed.R.Crim.P. 37(a)(2) read in pertinent part:
An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from ....
The 1966 amendments completely rewrote subdivision (a) of Rule 37. As amended in 1966, subdivision (a) (2) read in pertinent part:
Notice of appeal by a defendant shall be filed within 10 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, sentence or order but before entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof. ... A judgment or order is entered within the meaning of this paragraph when it is entered in the criminal docket. .
The Notes to the 1966 amendments indicate that the first sentence of subdivision (a) (2) was reworded to indicate the mandatory character of the provision that the notice be filed within 10 days. The Notes further indicate that the second sentence of subdivision (a) (2) was added to incorporate the holding in Lemke v. United States, 346 U.S. 325, 74 S.Ct. 1, 98 L.Ed. 3 (1953). Lemhe held that dismissal of an appeal was not justified where the notice of appeal was filed after sentencing but before entry of the judgment.
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure became effective July 1, 1968, and made it possible to abrogate Fed.R.Crim.P. 37. What *507had been Fed.R.Crim.P. 37(a) is now Fed.R. App.P. 4(b) from which our rule, D.C.App. R. 4 11(b), was derived.

i See note 2 supra.