Court Opinion

ID: 9799412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:07:56.216999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:25.948449
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McKINNON,
concurring.
¶20 These proceedings have been time consuming and torturous for the District Court. While I agree that the 2013 Amended Order must be reversed because it affected the substantive rights of Davenport by imposing jail time without proper procedure, the District Court must have a means by which to effectuate its orders. In this instance, Davenport has gone two years without paying the fine imposed by the District Court. Clearly the District Court must address Davenport’s noncompliance. However, there are procedures, such as an order to *509show cause and a hearing, which are available for the District Court when a parly refuses to follow a court order. While Davenport has had two appeals to this Court and innumerable hearings before and review from the District Court, the record does not indicate that Davenport was given notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of the 2013 Amended Order. As the 2013 Amended Order imposed a new condition which substantively affected Davenport’s liberty interests, she should have been given an opportunity to address imposition of the new condition before the District Court.
¶21 I therefore concur in the decision of the Court.