Court Opinion

ID: 9695383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:17:49.089797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:11.356722
License: Public Domain

*405Dissenting Opinion by MURPHY, J., which BATTAGLIA and BARBERA, JJ., Join.
Although I agree that, “where the trial judge believes summary action is required [to punish a direct criminal contempt], he or she must get it right the first time,” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “it” is the written order required by Md. Rule 15-20S(b). What the trial judge must “get right” is the summary action permitted by Md. Rule 15-203(a), and the record in the case at bar proves beyond any doubt that—as Appellant contumaciously walked out of the courtroom after being told to remain—the District Court got it right. Nothing whatsoever in the history of Md. Rules 15-203 or 7-116 supports the majority’s holding that a timely— but technically incorrect—order of direct criminal contempt cannot be corrected on remand. Because the issuance of a corrected order simply does not violate the prohibition “against a judge having two bites at the contempt apple,” this case should either be affirmed on its merits or remanded to the Circuit Court with directions that the appeal be dismissed.
This Court should hold that Appellant was not entitled to a trial de novo in the Circuit Court. In Harper v. State, 312 Md. 396, 540 A.2d 124 (1988), while holding that a Circuit Court jury trial de novo is available to defendants who have noted an appeal from District Court orders finding them in direct criminal contempt, this Court stated:
This Court could, under its constitutional rule-making authority over matters of practice and procedure, expand the category of cases where appeals from the District Court would be on the record, as long as the rights to jury trial were preserved.
Id. at 408, 540 A.2d at 130. In a Rules Order that was entered on March 30, 1993, and took effect on July 1, 1993, this Court adopted Rule 7-102, which, in pertinent part, provided:
(a) On the Record. An appeal shall be heard on the record made in the District Court in the following cases:
*406(4) an appeal from an order or judgment of direct criminal contempt if the sentence imposed by the District Court was less than 90 days’ imprisonment.
Based upon the presumption that the General Assembly became aware of this rule, and the fact that the General Assembly has not amended CJ § 12-401, Appellant was not entitled to a trial de novo. He was, however, required to comply with Md. Rule 7-113, which provides as follows:
Rule 7-113. Appeals heard on the record.
(a) Scope. This Rule applies only to appeals heard on the record of the District Court.
(b) Filing of transcript. (1) Unless a copy of the transcript is already on file, the appellant, within 10 days after the date the first notice of appeal is filed, shall order in writing from the clerk of the District Court a transcript containing:
(A) a transcription of (i) all the testimony or (ii) that part of the testimony that the parties agree, by written stipulation filed with the clerk of the District Court, is necessary for the appeal; and
(B) a transcription of any other proceeding relevant to the appeal that was recorded pursuant to Rule 16-504.
(2) The clerk of the District Court shall cause the original transcript to be filed promptly for inclusion in the record, and shall advise the appellant when the transcript has been filed. The appellant shall promptly serve a copy on the appellee.
(c) Notice by clerk. Upon the filing of the record, the clerk of the circuit court shall enter the appeal on the docket and shall send to the parties a notice stating the date the appeal was entered on the docket and the assigned docket reference. The notice shall also advise the appellant that a memorandum complying with Rule 7-113 must be filed within 30 days after the date the appeal was entered on the docket.
(d) Memorandum and response. (1) The appellant shall file a memorandum in opposition to the decision of the District Court within 30 days after the date the appeal was entered *407on the docket or as otherwise ordered by the court. The appellee may file a response within 15 days after service of the appellant’s memorandum, but in no event later than five days before the date of argument, if argument has been scheduled.
(2) In addition to otherwise complying with Rule 1-301, a memorandum or response shall be typewritten or printed, shall be double spaced, and shall not exceed ten pages in length. The appellant’s memorandum shall contain (A) a statement of the questions presented for review, (B) a concise statement of the facts material to a determination of the questions presented, and (C) argument in support of the appellant’s position, stating the grounds for the relief sought and the authorities in support of each ground. The appellee’s response shall contain argument in support of the decision of the District Court, stating the grounds for affirmance and the authorities in support of each ground.
(3) If an appellant fails to file a memorandum within the time prescribed by this Rule, the circuit court may dismiss the appeal if it finds that the failure to file or the late filing caused prejudice to the moving party. An appellee who fails to file a memorandum within the time prescribed by this Rule may not present argument except with the permission of the court.
(e) Oral argument. A party desiring oral argument shall request it in the memorandum or response under the heading “Request for Oral Argument”. Unless oral argument is requested by a party or ordered by the circuit court, the appeal shall be decided without oral argument.
(f) Scope of review. The circuit court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the District Court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the District Court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
(g) Disposition. (1) As to each party to an appeal, the circuit court shall by order dispose of an appeal in one of the following ways:
*408(A) dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 7-114;
(B) affirm the judgment;
(C) vacate or reverse the judgment;
(D) modify the judgment;
(E) remand the action in accordance with subsection (2) of this section; or
(F) an appropriate combination of the above.
(2) If the circuit court concludes that the substantial merits of a case will not be determined by affirming, reversing, or modifying the judgment, or that justice will be served by permitting further proceedings, the court may remand the case to the District Court. In the order remanding a case, the circuit court shall state the purpose for the remand. The order of remand and the opinion upon which the order is based are conclusive as to the points decided. Upon remand, the District Court shall conduct any further proceedings necessary to determine the action in accordance with the opinion and order of the circuit court.
(h) Opinion. In every appeal, the circuit court shall render a concise opinion, which shall be reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.
From my review of the record, Appellant did not comply with requirements of sections (b) and (d) of Md. Rule 7-113. I would therefore direct that the Circuit Court dismiss this appeal.
Assuming that the Circuit Court was required to reach the merits, however, it is clear to me that the Circuit Court was expressly authorized by Md. Rule 7-113(g) to do precisely what it did: remand to the District Court for entry of an order that complied with the requirements of Md. Rule 15-203(b). Nothing in the history of Md. Rule 7-113(g) supports the conclusion that a District Court’s judgment of direct criminal contempt cannot be vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Moreover, such a conclusion is directly contrary to federal precedent.
*409In Buffington v. Baltimore County, 913 F.2d 113 (4th Cir.1990), while vacating “civil” contempt judgments entered in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against two lawyers who violated their obligation to comply with discovery orders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated:
There was no clear error in the district court’s subsidiary fact-findings that [the lawyers] had possession of [certain] witness statements ... and that the refusal to apprise the Buffingtons of those critical statements permitted drawing the “weighty inference of knowing concealment.”
Any monetary sanction the court might impose on remand without reinstituting criminal proceedings must be civil in character^] ... Any reinstituted criminal contempt proceedings must of course comply with the requisites of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional protections afforded defendants in such proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, we ... vacate and remand the contempt sanctions against [the attorneys].
Id. at 135-36. Buffington was cited with approval in Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir.2004), in which the Fourth Circuit vacated a judgment of contempt and remanded for further proceedings at which the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina would be required to apply “the procedural safeguards necessary prior to the imposition of criminal penalties.” Id. at 822-23.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there should not have been a remand because “[t]here was no longer an immediate need to vindicate the dignity or efficient operation of the [District Court].” The conclusion that the second order was entered “too late” to vindicate the dignity of the court cannot be reconciled with this Court’s holding in Kandel v. State, 252 Md. 668, 250 A.2d 853 (1969). In that case, on March 12, 1969, this Court affirmed “an order of ... the Circuit Court for Baltimore County finding [the appellant] in *410contempt for failing punctually to appear at the trial of an accused whom he represented, and imposing a fine of $150.00,” even though the Circuit Court (1) announced its finding and punishment in open court on May 27, 1968 (the day of trial), but (2) did not sign the order of contempt, then required by Md. Rule P3(b), until November 5, 1968, and (3) did not file that order until November 18, 1968. Id. at 669-70, 250 A.2d at 853-854.
While it is true that former Md. Rule P3 (b) did not expressly require that the trial court issue a written order “either before sanctions are imposed or promptly thereafter,” the absence of that express requirement was of no consequence to the holding in Kandel. Even though the order required by Md. Rule P3(b) was not filed until after Mr. Kandel noted his appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction (over nine months after the contempt occurred) on the ground “that Mr. Kandel was not prejudiced by the delayed compliance with Rule P3 b.” Id. at 670, 250 A.2d at 854.
Moreover, Md. Rule l-201(a), in pertinent part, provides:
When a rule, by the word “shall” or otherwise, mandates or prohibits conduct, the consequences of noncompliance are those prescribed by these rules or by statute. If no consequences are prescribed, the court may compel compliance with the rule or may determine the consequences of the noncompliance in light of the totality of the circumstances and the purpose of the rule.
No consequences of noncompliance with the “prompt issuance” requirement in Md. Rule 15-203(b) are prescribed by any rule other than Md. Rule 7-113(g), or by statute. It is clear that the purpose of Md. Rule 15-203(b) is not to place busy trial judges “at the mercy of the obstreperous,” but rather to enable the appellate court to determine whether a contempt has been committed. Kandel, supra, 252 Md. at 670, 250 A.2d at 854. The “totality of the circumstances” analysis should obviously include a determination of (1) why the order was not issued “promptly,” and (2) whether the appellant was prejudiced in any way by the delayed compli*411anee with the rule. In the case at bar, the first order was entered one week after the contempt occurred. As was the situation in Kandel, Appellant is unable to show that he was prejudiced by the delayed compliance.
The “totality of the circumstances” analysis should also focus upon the impact of the contumacious conduct. If Appellant had contumaciously walked out of a courtroom while representing a party in a civil case, the trial court would not have been prohibited from continuing the trial. In the case at bar, however, Appellant contumaciously walked out of the courtroom while representing a criminal defendant who had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Under these circumstances, if we do not direct that the Circuit Court dismiss this appeal, we should certainly affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court on the ground that the record shows beyond any doubt that (in the words of the Circuit Court) “[Appellant’s] words and actions occurred in the courtroom in the trial judge’s presence and constituted a direct criminal contemptf.]”
Judges BATTAGLIA and BARBERA have authorized me to state that they join this dissenting opinion.