Court Opinion

ID: 9371979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 15:04:15.977371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.524470
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 10, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2022-CA-0168-MR

HAROLD MICHAEL MILAM                                                  APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM RUSSELL CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE VERNON MINIARD, JR., JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CR-00143

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                 APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, JONES, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: The Appellant (“Milam”) seeks review of a finding of direct

contempt and the sentence imposed upon him for that contempt. Milam contends

the circuit court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt and erred in

delaying the service of the contempt sentence. We affirm.

             On January 25, 2022, Milam appeared for a pretrial conference. The

video record accurately reflects Milam’s conduct and his interaction with the
presiding judge. As the attorneys first tried to discuss setting a trial date, Milam

interrupted, asking the judge about getting a bond he could post. The prosecutor

offered information about bond factors, including prior criminal history. When the

prosecutor stated Milam faces charges of violent offenses and has a history of a

prior violent offense, Milam called the prosecutor a liar.

                The charges against Milam in this case are first-degree sexual abuse1

and first-degree criminal abuse.2 By statutory definition, such charges may be

referred to as violent offenses.3 Even if charges do not meet a specific statutory

designation, reasonable people may disagree about how “violent” prior crimes

were.

                Milam’s record includes reference to a prior conviction for fourth-

degree assault, as well as a second-degree assault charge which was amended to

first-degree wanton endangerment. As to the latter amended charge, Milam was

granted a pretrial diversion. Despite documented violations of that diversion, that

prior case was dismissed, because no action had been taken to void the diversion

within the allotted time. Milam v. Commonwealth, 593 S.W.3d 68, 70 (Ky. App.

2020).

1
    Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 510.110.
2
    KRS 508.100.
3
    KRS 439.3401(1)(f), (k).

                                                -2-
             The circuit court did not refer to the discussion about pending violent

charges and history in making its bond decision, which is not the subject of this

appeal. We mention it only for context of the interaction between Milam and the

judge. After Milam called the prosecutor a liar, Milam continued to question his

attorney about the filing of a bond motion. The judge first tried to get Milam’s

attention by saying “Hey.” The judge then banged his gavel as he rose from a

seated position to tell Milam: “You shut your mouth until you’re asked to talk.”

             The judge directed Milam not to speak about court personnel as

Milam had done (calling the prosecutor a liar). Milam apologized. The judge then

calmly explained the court’s bond decision was based on a “high” risk assessment,

which the judge further explained “that means you don’t appear.” There was no

mention of the violent charge history as a factor in the judge’s bond decision.

             Milam then continued to question his attorney before again making a

direct and unsolicited statement to the judge. Referring first to his attorney, Milam

said, “He’s fired” and then referring to both his attorney and the female prosecutor

by exclaiming, “He’s having sexual relations with the prosecutor.” At this point,

the judge imposed a six-month sentence for contempt of court for “making

allegations like that in here.” The judge then made it clear the six-month sentence

would be consecutive to any sentence Milam may receive for his charges.

                                         -3-
                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             This case involves direct criminal contempt for conduct occurring

within the sight or hearing of the court. Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805,

808 (Ky. 1996). The trial court’s findings of fact of what occurred must be

accepted by this Court if supported by substantial evidence. Payton v.

Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010). No one disputes the actual

conduct which is clearly recorded. The comments on the oral record support the

circuit court’s written statement the contempt was for an “outburst in court.”

             Whether certain conduct constitutes contempt is a question of law

which we review de novo. See Burge, supra (explanation of conduct which may

constitute direct contempt). The decision to find contempt, the nature of the

sentence, and how it is imposed (consecutively, for example) by the trial court is

within its discretion. Howard v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 471, 475 (Ky. 2016).

We may only reverse the exercise of that discretion if it is abused. Id.

                                    ANALYSIS

             Regardless of comments about how many jails Milam had been in and

why (comments not made when Milam was interacting with the judge), the

question here is what Milam did in the courtroom and how the judge responded.

The finding of contempt occurred only after Milam had been warned not to make

statements about court personnel after he called the prosecutor a liar. Milam was

                                         -4-
ordered not to speak until asked to do so. Milam immediately disobeyed the

court’s direct order. Milam spoke up again alleging a sexual relationship between

the prosecutor and his own attorney to support Milam’s firing of the attorney.

Milam’s appellate counsel concedes the comments Milam made were “ugly and

inflammatory.” Appellant’s Brief at page 9.

               The obligation of the court to maintain order and decorum in its

proceedings authorized the judge in these circumstances to get Milam’s attention

with the stern direction to be quiet. While Milam’s present counsel may have

preferred to hear gentler language and see a calmer demeanor, the judge here was

shown to be acting within his discretion. When Milam spoke again without

permission and made another outrageous allegation in direct defiance of the earlier

order of the court to remain silent and not make such allegations, the finding of

contemptuous conduct by Milam was justified.

               A court must maintain proper decorum which includes maintaining

respectful interaction among the participants in a hearing. See Preston v.

Commonwealth, 406 S.W.2d 398, 404 (Ky. 1966) (litigant interrupting a witness to

suggest the witness was being paid for false testimony).4 The maximum of six

months is within the judge’s sentencing authority for a sentence in a summary

4
  “Disorderly conduct in the court room, or the use of violence, or threatening, or insulting
language to the court, witnesses, or counsel is contempt.” In Re Smith, 926 So.2d 878, 888
(Miss. 2006) (citations omitted).

                                                -5-
proceeding when direct contempt occurs. Newsome v. Commonwealth, 35 S.W.3d

836, 840 (Ky. App. 2001).

                Milam concedes he did not preserve any error in the imposition of the

consecutive sentence. He requests palpable error review. RCr5 10.26. This Court

will review alleged errors in sentencing, even if not preserved. Jones v.

Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22, 27-28 (Ky. 2011). As we will explain, the trial

court committed no error in the sentencing, much less an unpreserved error which

resulted in any manifest injustice.

                Having reviewed all the judge’s statements on the record, it is clear

the judge imposed a six-month sentence (“you’ve got six months”). The further

comments make clear the sentence was to be consecutive. The law does not

prohibit the consecutive misdemeanor sentence in these circumstances. See

Handley v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Ky. App. 1983). The

superfluous comments about parole eligibility do not change the actual nature of

the sentence. The circuit court did not err in making the sentence consecutive.

The application of jail credit for the pending case, if a conviction occurs later,

would not change Milam’s right to apply every day he serves to one sentence or

another. The six-month contempt sentence is still consecutive, which the circuit

court had the legal authority to impose.

5
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                            -6-
             Within ten days of the imposition of the contempt sentence, the circuit

court ordered an evaluation of Milam for competency and criminal responsibility

based on a motion by Milam’s counsel. Milam filed no motion to alter or amend

or vacate the circuit court’s previous finding of contempt or the sentence imposed

claiming any lack of criminal responsibility. Because the contempt decision was

subject to immediate appeal, this Court does not have the record of the later

proceedings which would reveal any competency or criminal responsibility

determinations.

             While the parties commented on the evaluation in their briefs, the

issue of how this might impact the contempt finding was not fully addressed or for

that matter preserved for our review. Our research reveals responsibility for

contempt may be determined by the circumstances of the conduct at the time it

occurs. United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985). Milam

illustrated his ability to comply with the rules of the court when he acknowledged

the judge’s first warning and apologized for his conduct. Milam was not shown to

be so delusional or otherwise mentally ill as to be unable to conform to acceptable

court behavior. The circuit court did not err in finding contempt and sentencing

Milam for that contempt based upon any later claim Milam was not responsible for

his behavior.

                                         -7-
                                CONCLUSION

            The order of the Russell Circuit Court finding the Appellant in

contempt and sentencing him to serve six months consecutive to another sentence

is AFFIRMED.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jennifer Wade                            Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky                      Attorney General of Kentucky

                                         Joseph A. Beckett
                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                       -8-