City of Cleveland v. Bright

• Decision Date: 05 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 108989,108989
• Parties: City of CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Asia S. BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

162 N.E.3d 153

2020 Ohio 5180

City of CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Asia S. BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 108989

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 5, 2020

Barbara A. Langhenry, Cleveland Director of Law, Karrie Howard, City of Cleveland Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Karyn J. Lynn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE, LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE, EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

PER CURIAM:

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Asia Bright, appeals the trial court's imposition of community control sanctions. She raises one assignment of error for our review:

A sentence of community control sanctions was improperly imposed because community control sanctions are not an available punishment for criminal contempt of court.

{¶ 2} Although not for the same reasons argued by Bright, we find merit to her assigned error. We therefore affirm Bright's jail time and fine sanctions, reverse and vacate her community control sanctions, and remand for the trial court to issue a new judgment entry reflecting that Bright is not subject to five years of community control sanctions.

I. Introduction

{¶ 3} Because this issue appears to be one of first impression, it will be helpful to review the long history of contempt law. First, however, we must address the arraignment room judge's actions. Bright spent 15 days in jail for contempt — and was additionally sentenced to five years of community control sanctions — for saying a few undesirable words about and in front of the arraignment room judge and rolling her eyes. The arraignment room judge responded emotionally to Bright's actions rather than approach her in a dignified and judicious manner. Although judges have inherent and statutory contempt powers to prevent the obstruction of the administration of justice, judges are not supposed to abuse this power when they become "personally embroiled" with defendants who appear before them. See State v. Hudson , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 157, 2011-Ohio-6424, 2011 WL 6231215, ¶ 56, quoting State v. Daly , 2d Dist. Clark No. 06-CA-20, 2006-Ohio-6818, 2006 WL 3759572, ¶ 52 (" ‘An accused contemnor has the right to an impartial judge who has not become personally embroiled in the contempt issue.’ "); Offutt v. United States , 348 U.S. 11, 13-14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954). Moreover, judges have long had the ethical obligation to recuse themselves from a case where they can no longer be neutral and detached, or even where their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. See Canon 3(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Hayes , 418 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974) :

[C]ontemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil [the judge] in controversy that [the judge] cannot "hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the [s]tate and the accused[.]" Tumey v. Ohio , 273 U.S. 510, 532[, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749] (1927). In making this ultimate judgment, the inquiry must be not only whether there was actual bias on [the judge's] part, but also whether there was "such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused." Ungar v. Sarafite , 376 U.S. 575, 588[, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921] (1964). "Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties," but due process of law requires no less. In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133, 136[, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942] (1955).

{¶ 4} One could question whether the arraignment room judge met her ethical obligations in this case.

II. Procedural History and Factual Background

{¶ 5} In May 2019, Bright was charged with assault and aggravated disorderly conduct.¹ While Bright was in the arraignment room on these charges, the arraignment room judge asked her to "have a seat" while she called a public defender to represent Bright. According to the arraignment room judge, Bright rolled her eyes as she was waiting. The public defender arrived at some point later. Bright's attorney and the court discussed a no-contact order and a GPS monitor, and the judge told Bright's attorney that Bright was "going to spend some time with me today." The judge said that she was "so glad to have company" and instructed the court reporter to be on her "best behavior" because "we have company." The judge further told Bright's attorney that she was "hoping" to "get" Bright's assault case. The judge then stated that she heard Bright say, "corny as f*ck." Bright responded, "I said corny the way you're treating me." The judge told Bright to "close [her] mouth," and had her removed from the arraignment room and placed in a holding cell.

{¶ 6} Later that same day, the arraignment room judge brought Bright back to the arraignment room. According to the judge, she learned that when Bright was in the holding cell, Bright repeatedly referred to the judge as a "b*tch" so loudly that another judge had to close his door because Bright "interrupted him" while he was "trying to perform his duties."

{¶ 7} The arraignment room judge advised Bright that she was being charged with two counts of contempt of court and one count of obstruction of official business and that bond would be set. The judge suggested that Bright had mental-health issues, which Bright's counsel denied. Bright explained that she had been upset because she did not have the opportunity to speak during her arraignment. The judge told Bright that she did not let her speak because the judge was waiting for Bright's counsel to appear. The judge then stopped and said, "you can keep rolling your eyes." Bright responded that she was not rolling her eyes and said that she was about to cry. The judge replied, "that's not acceptable." Bright's counsel then instructed Bright to stop interrupting the court and stated that Bright was "not even crying" and did not "have any tears." Bright told her counsel to "get away from" her and told the court that her counsel was "rude." The court then instructed the bailiff to take Bright "away" saying, "bye bye."²

{¶ 8} Bright was charged with three counts of contempt of court in violation of R.C. 2705.02.³ In support of the charges, the arraignment room judge signed an affidavit that stated Bright, "while in a courtroom, * * * did repeatedly refer to the court as a ‘b*tch,’ and called the courtroom ‘sh*t.’ " On June 4, 2019, Bright entered a plea of not guilty to all three charges.

{¶ 9} At a hearing on August 13, 2019, during which Bright, Bright's new attorney, and a prosecutor were present, Bright's counsel orally moved to dismiss all three contempt charges, and the court denied the motion. Bright withdrew her plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the first charge of contempt that involved her comment to the judge that the proceedings were "corny as f*ck." The trial court accepted her guilty plea, and the remaining two contempt charges were nolled. The court imposed 30 days of incarceration at the Cleveland House of Corrections, suspended 15 days of the jail time, and ordered that Bright serve the 15 days from August 13 to August 27, 2019. The court also imposed a $250 fine and suspended it, and imposed five years of community control sanctions, which included conditions that Bright complete anger management classes and read an apology letter in open court.⁴

{¶ 10} On September 4, 2019, Bright appeared before the arraignment room judge and submitted her apology letter. The judge told Bright that she needed to write another letter titled, "How would you feel if I called your mother a b*tch."⁵ The judge then addressed the other people in the courtroom and recounted, in detail, Bright being in the arraignment room for assault, the allegations underlying the assault charge, and the contempt incident. The judge told Bright, "Let me explain something to you. You are on five years of active probation to me. It's [going to] be a long five years." Bright's response was inaudible, but the bailiff told the court that Bright said, "This is some bullsh*t." Bright insisted that she said, "Oh my goodness," but she was again charged with contempt, and the court instructed that she be taken "to the holding cell."⁶

{¶ 11} Bright timely appeals the trial court's August 13, 2019 judgment entry. Her sanctions were stayed pending this appeal.

III. Law and Analysis

{¶ 12} In her sole assignment of error, Bright argues that the trial court's imposition of community control sanctions was improper because R.C. 2705.05 does not provide for "community control sanctions as a potential penalty" for contempt. Alternatively, Bright argues that even if such sanctions were available, they were unreasonable under the circumstances because five years of community control sanctions are disproportionate to her conduct.

{¶ 13} R.C. 2705.05 sets forth procedures and statutory penalties for contempt. The procedures include conducting a hearing where the court must investigate the charge, give the accused the opportunity to present a defense, and determine whether the accused is guilty of contempt. R.C. 2705.05(A). The penalties include different levels of fines and jail terms depending on whether the offense is a first, second, or third offense. R.C. 2705.05(A)(1)–(3). The minimum statutory penalty is a $250 fine and 30 days in jail, and the maximum statutory penalty is a fine of $1,000 and 90 days in jail. R.C. 2705.05(A)(3).

{¶ 14} The question at the crux of this appeal is whether the trial court was required to follow the limits set forth in R.C. 2705.05 when punishing Bright or whether it...