Court Opinion

ID: 9565878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:29:26.218009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:41.950773
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the judgment and most of the supporting reasoning of the majority, I am unable to concur with all that is stated in Division 1. According to the citation for contempt under which appellant was tried, the contumacious conduct occurred on May 8, 1989, when appellant failed to remain in the courtroom until the conclusion of the calendar call in order to resolve a potential scheduling conflict. Appellant was also charged with failing to return to court when specifically directed to do so by the trial court. This apparently relates to appellant’s failure to comply with Judge Ison’s direction by telephone on May 10, 1989.
Judge Boswell’s order found appellant in contempt for two reasons, the failure to remain in the courtroom as directed by Judge Ison on May 8, 1989, and appellant’s failure to appear and be ready for trial after announcing ready for trial. See In re Sykes, 151 Ga. App. 233 (259 SE2d 215). I do not read Judge Boswell’s order as being predicated upon any failure of appellant to comply with the telephone directions of May 10, 1989. Indeed, the evidence suggests that compliance may have been physically impossible. Consequently, I do not concur with the language in Division 1 which appears to approve of the procedure utilized on the basis that summary punishment for appellant’s failure to comply with the order given during the telephone conversation would have been proper. Nonetheless, under the circumstances of the case sub judice, there was no error in the attachment of appellant so as to permit the trial court to inquire as to the cause of his unauthorized departure and continued absence. See Martin v. Waters, 151 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) (259 SE2d 153).
Additionally, in Division 5 the majority has stated that which ap*566pellant has deemed as his punishment is actually the method by which appellant may purge himself of the contempt. Although perhaps implicit in the majority’s statement I would, in the interest of clarity, add that no punishment has been imposed under Judge Boswell’s order which appellant will avoid by purging himself of contempt. Nor is there any punishment of any kind imposed against appellant.
Decided May 9, 1990.
James Booker, pro se.
Dwight L. Thomas, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Clifford A. Sticher, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley joins in this special concurrence.