Avallone, Matter of
| Decision Date | 18 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 11768,11768 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Anthony F. AVALLONE, Criminal Contempt of the Court of Appeals. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This action for contempt arose during the present appellant's representation of a client on appeal. The present appellant filed a docketing statement in the Court of Appeals for a client on October 21, 1977.
After receipt of the docketing statement the Court of Appeals placed the case on its limited calendar. The clerk's trial record was filed October 24, 1977 in the Court of Appeals. On November 14, 1977, the present appellant filed a brief in chief. At the time the brief was filed the following actions, mandated by Rules 207(b), 209(a) and (b) and 501(a) and (e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for criminal cases, were not taken.
1) Appellant did not file a description of the parts of proceedings believed necessary for inclusion in the transcript or serve a copy of the same upon appellee. N.M.R. Crim.App. 209(a) (§ 41-23A-209(a), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975)). (2) Appellant did not request a designation conference prior to filing the brief in chief. N.M.R. Crim.App. 209(a). (3) Appellant did not file a designation of the transcript of proceedings or proof of satisfactory arrangements. N.M.R. Crim.App. 209(b) (§ 41-23A-209(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975)). (4) Appellant did not file a transcript of proceedings under the limited calendar requirements of the rules. N.M.R. Crim.App. 207(b) (§ 41-23A-207(b) N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975)). (5) Appellant failed to provide references to the transcript or the record proper in the brief in chief. N.M.R. Crim.App. 501(a) and (e) (§ 41-23A-501(a) and (e), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975)).
Upon receipt of the brief in chief, the appellee (State) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the N.M. Crim.App. Rules. The Court of Appeals denied the motion but directed that the present appellant show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
At the show cause hearing the present appellant moved that Chief Judge Wood recuse himself. He also moved to quash the hearing because the proceedings had not been initiated by a sworn pleading or a pleading accompanied by an affidavit. At the hearing the Court of Appeals found the present appellant in contempt of court for failure to comply with the N.M. Crim.App. Rules and fined him $250.00.
Appellant contends that Chief Judge Wood should have recused himself since he had signed the court order initiating the show cause hearing and therefore was biased. We do not agree. The proper test for determining whether the impartiality of a judge has been affected by the acts of the contemnor is whether the act involves the personal feelings of the judge. Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 600 (1959); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971). Where the acts involve vilification of the judge so that he becomes personally embroiled in the proceedings, due process may require that the judge be disqualified. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania,supra. The conduct of the appellant was not directed toward any judge personally but toward the procedures employed by the appellate court as a court of review.
The present appellant's second contention is that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the show cause hearing was not initiated by a verified pleading or a pleading accompanied by an affidavit. We do not agree. Filing of documents occurs in the constructive presence of the court and may be a direct contempt if either the document or the act of filing is contemptuous. People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan, 37 Ill.App.3d 673, 346 N.E.2d 456 (1976). A direct contempt may also consist of disobedience to or neglect of lawful process of the court. Philadelphia Marine T. Ass'n. v. International L. Ass'n., 392 Pa. 500, 140 A.2d 814 (1958).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Direct Criminal Contempt Maestas
... 517 P.3d 942 In the MATTER OF the Direct Criminal CONTEMPT OF Alan H. MAESTAS, Attorney-Appellant. No. A-1-CA-39379 Court of Appeals of New Mexico. Filing Date: June 22, 2022 ... See, e.g. , In re Avallone , 1978-NMSC-056, 5, 10, 91 N.M. 777, 581 P.2d 870 (affirming this Court's imposition of a $250 fine on an attorney who failed to conform to the ... ...
-
In re Byrnes
... ... See Commonwealth v. Carr, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 179, 646 N.E.2d 426, 427 (1995) ("As a preliminary matter, the trial judge must warn individuals that they are in danger of being charged with contempt of court before contempt rules may be invoked."). We ... See In re Avallone, 91 N.M. 777, 778, 581 P.2d 870, 871 (1978) ... g. Representation by Attorney General ... {38} Byrnes alleges ... ...
-
State v. Cherryhomes
... ... matter was decided. At the hearing, Cherryhomes requested that Judge Shuler recuse himself because he did not think the judge could be objective. Judge ... Id.; see generally SCRA 1986, 5-902 (Repl.Pamp.1992) at 164 & 172 ("contempt of court"); cf. In re Avallone, 91 N.M. 777, 581 P.2d 870 (1978) (if contempt is for failure to follow court rules, and the judge does not become personally embroiled in the ... ...
-
State v. Case
... ... He relies on cases which involved disruptive activities, see Matter of Klecan, 93 N.M. 637, 603 P.2d 1094 (1979). He disregards cases involving a refusal to answer after the trial court instructed the witness that ... Avallone, 91 N.M. 777, 581 P.2d 870 (1978). Case contends that a lack of impartiality is shown by the trial court proceeding in derogation of Case's right to ... ...