Coleman v. State, A04A1976.
Decision Date | 01 October 2004 |
Docket Number | No. A04A1976.,A04A1976. |
Citation | 269 Ga. App. 827,605 S.E.2d 424 |
Parties | COLEMAN v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
McNeill Stokes, for Appellant.
Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor General, James L. Yeargan, Jr., Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee.
Thomas Coleman appeals after being found in contempt of court. Because the trial court did not allow Coleman an opportunity to be heard before summarily announcing punishment, we reverse.
This case arose when Coleman went to the City Court of Atlanta to contest a traffic citation. It was announced that everyone in the courtroom was to turn off all cell phones. Coleman's cell phone was not turned off and rang during court proceedings. The judge told the bailiff to confiscate Coleman's cell phone. Coleman refused to give up his cell phone without a receipt. According to the order finding Coleman in contempt, the judge told Coleman a second time to give his phone to the bailiff and he refused, leaving the courtroom instead. The judge sent the courtroom deputy after Coleman and after Coleman came back into the courtroom, held him in contempt. The judge initially sentenced Coleman to 365 days probation, a $200 fine and 100 hours of community service. The sentence was subsequently changed to eliminate the 365 days probation.
Coleman raises several enumerations of error on appeal, but we need only address his claim that he was sentenced without an opportunity to be heard.
During trial, a trial judge has the power, when necessary to maintain order in the courtroom, to declare conduct committed in his presence and observed by him to be contemptuous, and, after affording the contemnor an opportunity to speak in his or her own behalf, to announce punishment summarily and without further notice or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Johnson
...opportunity to defend himself against the trial judge's conclusion that his conduct was contemptuous. See Coleman v. State , 269 Ga. App. 827, 827-828, 605 S.E.2d 424 (2004) (holding that even though the appellant had refused to comply with the trial judge's repeated demand, summary contemp......
-
In re Williams
...record shows that trial judge did not afford attorney held in contempt a "meaningful opportunity to be heard"); Coleman v. State , 269 Ga. App. 827, 827-28, 605 S.E.2d 424 (2004) (same). That is because of the "heightened potential for abuse posed by the contempt power." Taylor , 418 U.S. a......
-
In re Sprayberry, A15A1616.
...contempt hearing, it was incumbent upon the court to afford [Sprayberry] an opportunity to be heard" on this issue. Coleman v. State, 269 Ga.App. 827, 605 S.E.2d 424 (2004) (citation omitted). The trial court failed to provide Sprayberry with such an opportunity, with the result that the ju......
- Robinson v. State, A04A2066.
-
9 Contempt
...contemnor of basis of contempt inquiry is always required - even when court just observed contemptuous conduct in its presence. Coleman, 269 Ga.App. 827, 605 SE2d 424 (2004). 9.23 Give accused opportunity to speak (for allocution) [Mayberry v. Pa., 400 US 455 (1971); Johnson, 258 Ga.App. 33......
-
9 Contempt
...contemnor of basis of contempt inquiry is always required - even when court just observed contemptuous conduct in its presence. Coleman, 269 Ga.App. 827, 605 SE2d 424 (2004). 9.23 Give accused opportunity to speak (for allocution) [Mayberry v. Pa., 400 US 455 (1971); Johnson, 258 Ga.App. 33......
-
9 Contempt
...contemnor of basis of contempt inquiry is always required - even when court just observed contemptuous conduct in its presence. Coleman, 269 Ga.App. 827, 605 SE2d 424 (2004). 9.23 Give accused opportunity to speak (for allocution) [Mayberry v. Pa., 400 US 455 (1971); Johnson, 258 Ga.App. 33......
-
9 Contempt
...contemnor of basis of contempt inquiry is always required - even when court just observed contemptuous conduct in its presence. Coleman, 269 Ga.App. 827, 605 SE2d 424 (2004). 9.23 Give accused opportunity to speak (for allocution) [Mayberry v. Pa., 400 US 455 (1971); Johnson, 258 Ga.App. 33......