Court Opinion

ID: 9771731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:52:12.022775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.894873
License: Public Domain

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with most of the principles set out by the majority and argued by the State, I nonetheless must dissent- for the reasons set out below.
*914A. Attorneys Must Obey the Orders of the Trial Judye
I fully share the concern of the majority, and of Judge Mauer, that attorneys cannot be their own judge. If the judge overrules an attorney’s objection, then in almost every instance the attorney’s only remedy is to seek a writ or to make his or her record and then raise the issue on appeal. An attorney’s legal and ethical obligation to represent his client’s interest within the bounds of the law does not require more. If the attorney nonetheless simply ignores the trial judge’s order because the attorney thinks the order is wrong, the attorney is subject to being found in contempt. Even if the order is later determined to be invalid, it will not void the contempt.
The rationale behind this principle, which is often termed “the collateral bar rule” was well set out by the United States Supreme Court in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975), as follows:
We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.... Remedies for judicial error may be cumbersome but the injury flowing from an error generally is not irreparable, and orderly processes are imperative to the operation of the adversary system of justice.
Id. at 458-60, 95 S.Ct. at 591-92.
I also share the view expressed by Judge Mauer below that it is the trial judge, not the attorneys, who must control the court’s docket. In determining his docket, the trial judge will of course take into consideration the workload of the attorneys who appear before the judge and the seriousness of the case in deciding whether to grant a continuance.
In this case, however, Judge Mauer believed based on his own experience and on the experience of other judges that the case could have been properly prepared for trial had adequate attention been given to it, and that the claim of failure to be adequately prepared was not a result of the complexity of the case but was simply a strategy on the part of the public defender to avoid and delay trial. If so, it was not incumbent on Judge Mauer to grant a continuance, for, as the Judge noted, it is he, not the prosecutor or the public defender, who must control the court’s docket. Moreover, if, at a hearing on indirect contempt, Judge Mauer’s concerns proved to be justified, he could well have found Mr. Picerno in contempt.
Here, of course, no such hearing was held, for the simple reason that Judge Mauer determined that Mr. Picerno was guilty of direct rather than indirect criminal contempt for leaving the courtroom in contravention of Judge Mauer’s order that he remain. I again agree with the majority, and with the position taken by the State in this Court in support of Judge Mauer, that an attorney can be held guilty of direct criminal contempt if he simply walks out of court in direct defiance of a judge’s order that he remain. I disagree with the State, and with the majority, that this is the issue with which we are presented, however. It is for this reason that I dissent.1
B. The Contempt Was Indirect Because Judge Mauer Chose to Base His Contempt Determination on Matters Which Occurred Both Outside and Within His Presence
The key issue as to which the majority and I disagree is whether Mr. Picerno was cited for direct contempt. The majority says that this is the case because the contempt order itself says it is based only on Mr. Picerno’s decision to leave court in violation of the judge’s order that he remain.
I disagree. My review of the record convinces me that, in this instance, the basis for *915the finding of contempt was not merely limited to Mr. Picerno’s unauthorized exit from the courtroom. To the contrary, Judge Mauer himself stated on the record that he believed he was entitled to consider matters which had occurred outside his presence in determining whether Mr. Picerno’s conduct constituted direct criminal contempt.2 It was for this very reason that he actually overruled Relator’s objection to evidence of past occasions on which either Relator or another public defender were also alleged to have come to court unprepared to try their cases, stating:
Because it is contempt I think that you will agree with me that the cases indicate that you can even go broader than those issues. That sometimes even matters outside the record become relevant to my ultimate determination of contempt. And for that purpose, I will hear what she has to say.
(emphasis added).
Similarly, the Judge repeatedly indicated that he believed the true issue was broader than simply whether Mr. Picerno was prepared, and included whether the Court or the Public Defender would “control the Court’s docket.” At one point, the Judge stated:
My intent in making this ruling is I believe that the issue of the Court’s ability to control the docket is involved and I think it’s time that we have a very definitive decision from the Court of Appeals with respect to these matters.
The majority suggests that these issues never became the basis of the order of contempt, and thus we should ignore them. While I agree that none of these matters should have been considered if the issue were one of direct contempt, Judge Mauer’s own words show that they were considered. In fact, even the State’s arguments on appeal demonstrate (albeit inadvertently) the interrelationship of the order of contempt and of the Public Defender’s office’s alleged repeated failure to prepare for trial. The State argues, for instance, that the ruling should be affirmed in part in order to teach the Public Defender it cannot control the court’s docket, stating Relator’s:
refusal to accept the Respondent’s order denying a continuance is reflective of an attitude demonstrated in the past by members of the office of Special Public Defender and the office of Public Defender.... Such information is relevant in light of Relator’s declarations on the record that his conduct was not intentional and that he had not refused to proceed to trial in the past. Respondent reiterated that his intent in making his ruling was to demonstrate the court’s ability to control its docket.
In other words, assuming that Judge Mauer would be within his authority in basing a finding of direct contempt solely on the matters which occurred in his presence, that is simply not what he did. Rather, he specifically indicated that he believed he was entitled to consider matters which occurred outside of his presence in determining whether the contempt was direct or indirect in nature, and then proceeded to do just that. The Judge specifically addressed the actions of Mr. Picerno not only in front of Judge Mauer himself, but also his actions (or, more accurately, his inactions) in preparing for trial of this ease, and his alleged failure to adequately prepare for hearings before other judges in the past.
Because conduct outside the presence of the Court was in fact considered by the Court in ordering Relator to remain in the courtroom, in denying his request for continuance, in determining that the act of leaving the courtroom was contemptuous and in setting a punishment therefor, I conclude that any contempt was at least in part indirect. Judge Mauer should have followed procedures applicable to indirect criminal contempt. Osborne v. Purdome, 244 S.W.2d 1005, 1011-12 (Mo. banc 1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 953, 72 S.Ct. 1046, 96 L.Ed. 1354 (1952). As it is uncontested that Mr. Picerno was not given the type of notice and opportu*916nity to prepare a defense required for indirect criminal contempt (for instance, he did not have the opportunity to show that the allegations about his lack of preparation lacked validity or could be reasonably explained), I would reverse.
C. The Condemnor Was Not Told the Conduct Alleged to Be Contemptuous with Sufficient Specificity So as to Support the Determination of Direct Criminal Contempt
Even were the criminal contempt properly classified as direct, the contempt order should be reversed. The procedures to be followed in a case involving direct criminal contempt are well summarized in State ex. rel. Burrell-El v. Aubrey, 752 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.App.1988). Of particular importance here is the requirement that:
(1) After determining that summary contempt is necessary, the court shall advise the contemnor as to exactly what act or conduct is contemptuous, and the con-temnor should be asked whether he knows the act is contemptuous and if there is any reason or excuse for the act or conduct.
Id. at 899 (emphasis added). Burrell-El admonishes that “[t]he proper procedure is ‘absolutely necessary’ to any punishment for contempt,” Id. at 898, and “Where there is no order or judgment of contempt reciting the precise facts, a contempt cannot be upheld.” Id. at 899.
Here, there is no question that Judge Mauer’s Order of Contempt and Order of Commitment contained great detail, and specifically set out an act — refusing to remain in the courtroom despite a direct order to do so — which the Order states formed the basis of the contempt. My review of the transcript convinces me that Judge Mauer did not simply order Mr. Picerno to remain in the courtroom, however. Rather, he ordered him to remain in the courtroom in order to represent Mr. Hamilton in some capacity. In fact, the State takes the position in its brief in this Court that this is the very reason that Mr. Picerno’s conduct was contemptuous, stating:
Relator’s actions clearly caused actual, direct obstruction of and interference with the administration of justice. As a direct result of Relator’s contemptuous acts, the criminal trial, which was number one on the court’s docket, could not be held.
Of course, Relator’s act of walking out of the courtroom in no way prevented Mr. Hamilton’s trial from being held. What prevented the trial from being held was Relator’s refusal to act as counsel because of his claimed incompetence to do so, and his later refusal to remain in the courtroom to represent Mr. Hamilton in some lesser manner when Judge Mauer ordered the trial to proceed despite Mr. Picerno’s refusal to act as counsel.
True, as the majority notes, Judge Mauer at various points indicated that he left it to Mr. Picerno to decide in what capacity he would represent Mr. Hamilton. Judge Mauer also at times indicated that whatever the capacity in which he chose to act, Mr. Picerno would be considered as Mr. Hamilton’s counsel if he remained and that it was because Mr. Picerno would be present in some capacity as counsel that the trial would proceed.
Thus, at various points, Judge Mauer indicated that Mr. Picerno should: (1) remain and “do your best to represent this man as an officer of the court;” (2) sit in the courtroom during the case; (3) “stay in the courtroom and represent your client as you see fit;” (4) “stay in this courtroom and your participation is to be determined by your judgement only;” (5) “Stay or remain silent or do whatever you want to do;” (6) remain in the courtroom and be available to answer questions “not ordering that he participate in the trial in any particular degree other than to answer questions of the defendant;” and (7) stay in the courtroom, which the Judge said would mean Mr. Picerno “has to represent him [defendant] as he sees fit.”
For these reasons, I do not believe the order of direct criminal contempt was sufficiently specific as to the conduct required of Mr. Picerno in order to avoid contempt. He was not offered the opportunity of avoiding contempt by doing what the contempt order recites — that is, simply remaining in the courtroom. It may be that Mr. Picerno *917would have been willing to stay in the courtroom as an observer. All we know is that he was not willing to stay to act as “standby” counsel or in some other role as counsel for Mr. Hamilton.
I do not mean to suggest that Judge Mauer could not hold Mr. Picerno in contempt for refusing to stay and act in some capacity as counsel for Mr. Hamilton, or so as to be available to answer Mr. Hamilton’s questions. I simply would hold that this is not the conduct which is recited in the order, and, as noted above, “[t]he proper procedure is ‘absolutely necessary’ to any punishment for contempt,” Burrell-El, 752 S.W.2d at 898, and “Where there is no order or judgment of contempt reciting the precise facts, a contempt cannot be upheld.” Id. at 899. Here, the order was insufficiently specific and definite to form the basis for a finding of direct contempt.
For these reasons, I would make the writ absolute because I believe the basis for the contempt was at least in part indirect contempt and because the finding of contempt did not completely state the conduct on which the contempt was actually based.

. My work and that of the majority have been made much easier by the truly excellent quality of the briefing and argument by counsel for the State and for the Relator. I commend both counsel for their clear and thoughtful presentation of the issues.

. While the Contempt order itself refers only to an act committed in the Judge’s presence, we are not limited to consideration of the order itself in determining whether the contempt was direct or indirect. Rather, it is appropriate for us to look at the transcript to determine whether the act which occurred was in fact contemptuous, and if so whether it constituted direct or indirect criminal contempt. Cf. State ex. rel. Tannenbaum v. Clark, 838 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Mo.App.1992).