Court Opinion

ID: 9364853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 15:04:36.293119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.745660
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 13, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2021-CA-0564-MR

DONALD J. NEWTON                                                   APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE ELISE GIVHAN SPAINHOUR, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 18-CI-00213

SHEILA NEWTON; HON. ELISE G.
SPAINHOUR, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                            APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: During a hearing on December 12, 2019, the Bullitt Circuit

Court, Family Division, held Appellant, Donald J. Newton in direct, criminal

contempt of court for inexcusable courtroom behavior. As a result, Appellant was

sentenced to serve two days in the Bullitt County Detention Center (BCDC). After

Appellant was removed from the courtroom, he exhibited medical distress and was
transported to the hospital instead of BCDC. Appellant was in custody at the time

and under the supervision of a law enforcement officer. There being no indication

that Appellant was a danger to himself or others, the custodial officer was

subsequently relieved of his duty by the circuit court. Thereafter, Appellant was

discharged from the hospital but did not report to BCDC to serve his contempt

sentence.

             After failing to appear before the court pursuant to a show cause

order, a bench warrant was issued for Appellant’s arrest. Pursuant thereto, he was

arrested on December 29, 2020, in Jefferson County, Kentucky. A discovery

hearing was held on April 27, 2021. In an order entered on April 30, 2021, the

court determined that Appellant’s original two-day contempt sentence had been

satisfied due to his continuous incarceration since his arrest. The court then

ordered him to serve an additional sixty days for indirect criminal contempt, as a

result of his repeated failure to comply with the court’s orders. Appellant appeals

to this court as a matter of right. His sole argument on appeal is that the circuit

court abused its discretion. For the following reasons, we disagree.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

                   Criminal contempt can be either direct or indirect.
             A direct contempt is committed in the presence of the
             court and is an affront to the dignity of the court. It may
             be punished summarily by the court, and requires no fact-
             finding function, as all the elements of the offense are
             matters within the personal knowledge of the court.

                                          -2-
             Indirect criminal contempt is committed outside the
             presence of the court and requires a hearing and the
             presentation of evidence to establish a violation of the
             court’s order. It may be punished only in proceedings
             that satisfy due process.

Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Ky. 1996) (citations omitted).

Furthermore, as summarized in Meyers v. Petrie:

                    When a court exercises its contempt powers, it has
             nearly unlimited discretion. Consequently, we will not
             disturb a court’s decision regarding contempt absent an
             abuse of its discretion. The test for abuse of discretion is
             whether the trial [court’s] decision was arbitrary,
             unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
             principles.

233 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Ky. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). With these standards in mind, we now turn to the argument and facts of

the present case.

                                    ANALYSIS

             To be clear, Appellant is not contesting the validity of his original

two-day sentence for direct, criminal contempt. Rather, he is contesting the sixty-

day indirect contempt sentence issued by the court in its final order. A discovery

hearing was held on the underlying matter on April 27, 2021. Therein, law

enforcement officer testimony indicated that Appellant was to immediately report

to BCDC after his release. Appellant testified that he eventually attempted to turn

himself in but was turned away. There was no evidence corroborating this.

                                         -3-
             As previously stated, Appellant was eventually arrested pursuant to a

bench warrant that was issued for failure to appear before the circuit court, nearly

one year after he was originally sentenced for criminal contempt. As a result of his

repeated failure to comply with the court’s directives, Appellant was sentenced to

serve sixty days in BCDC. The court specifically found Appellant’s conduct to be

willful and that he had a history of “credibility issues.” Considering the immense

discretion afforded the circuit court and the record presented, we cannot conclude

that the circuit court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the Bullitt Circuit

Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                                            COMMONWEALTH OF
 Steven J. Buck                             KENTUCKY:
 Frankfort, Kentucky
                                            Daniel Cameron
                                            Attorney General of Kentucky

                                            Thomas A. Van De Rostyne
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                            Frankfort, Kentucky

                                          -4-