Court Opinion

ID: 9955548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 18:07:06.266091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:04.680206
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                                                                                        NO.        2023       KW     0989
STATE        OF    LOUISIANA

VERSUS

                                                                                                        MARCH            28,        2024
INDIA ARMANI                 RATLIFF

                                                            Brown,                                 for        rehearing,                  22nd
In     Re:          Belinda               Parker                          applying
                                                                 Court,         Parish             of     St.        Tammany,              No.
                       Judicial            District

                       3163- M- 2022.

                    McCLENDON,                  HESTER,          AND MILLER,             JJ.
BEFORE:

                                                              GRANTED.              WRIT           GRANTED               IN    PART        AND
             REHEARING             APPLICATION
                                                                                                                                     powers
DENIED            IN        PART.               A     court        possesses                 inherently                   all

                                                                        of      its          jurisdiction                          and     the
necessary                for         the            exercise

                                               lawful                              It    has        the        duty           to    require
enforcement                 of     its                       orders.

that         criminal            proceedings                shall be conducted with dignity and in
                                          expeditious               manner              and        to         so         control           the
an         orderly           and

                                          justice           is     done.            A    court            has       the            power       to
proceedings                  that
                                                     See    La.    Code        Crim.          P.    art.           17.         Where       the
punish          for      contempt.
law        is     silent,          the court has the inherent authority to fashion a
                                                                        the                              administration                        of
remedy            which            will              promote                       orderly
                                           Mims,           329    So. 2d       686,      688 (          La.       1976);           State       v.
justice.               State         v.
                                                            2d    Cir.        1/ 10/ 24) ,                        So. 3d                   2024
Dennis,            55, 462 (         La.        App.                                                                                 f

WL      105015.             However,             the Code provides                      that        a    court may punish                        a
person adjudged guilty of contempt of court in connection with a
                                                             fine        of     not          more        than            five       hundred
criminal               proceeding               by     a

                                                                                                   than           six         months,          or
dollars,               or    by      imprisonment                  for       not        more

                   La.       Code         Crim.        P.        art.     25( B).              Thus,              the     law        is     not
both.
                                      issue.                                            given           the         facts           of     this
 silent           on        this                            Accordingly,
                                                                                                                  banning            Belinda
 case,          the         trial          court           erred        by      permanently
                                                its    contempt              power,          from        Division              E    and     the
 Parker           Brown,         under

                             courtrooms,                   unless        subpoenaed                 as        a    witness,               as     a
misdemeanor

                   or        unless             specific            written              authorization                         from         the
 party,
 presiding judge was obtained.

             Therefore,              that           portion        of        the    ruling              permanently                  banning
             Parker          from          the        courtrooms              is        reversed.                    In        all        other
 Ms.
 respects,               the writ application is denied as the record shows the
                       adduced            at    the        contempt          proceedings                 was        sufficient                 for
 evidence

                                                    fact    to                          that                       element            of       the
 a     rational             trier         of                       conclude                        every
 criminal                constructive                  contempt               charge           was            proven               beyond           a

 reasonable                 doubt.             State        in    Interest              of    R. J. S.,            493        So. 2d       1199

              1986).           See        also       Rogers       v.     Dickens,             2006- 0898 (               La.        App.       1st
     La.
 Cir.        2/ 9/ 07),          959      So. 2d       940,       945.

                                                                       Pmc
                                                                       CHH

             Miller,           J.,     concurs.

 C) URT         OF APPEAL,                FIRST       CIRCUIT

           tEPUT             CLERK
                             C   I         OF       COURT
                         FOR     THE
                                 T         COURT