Hampton v. Hampton, 51393
| Decision Date | 01 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 51393,51393 |
| Citation | 1980 OK 46,609 P.2d 772 |
| Parties | Linda Jean HAMPTON, now Watts, Plaintiff, v. Charles R. HAMPTON, Appellant, and George T. Carter and Dorothy Carter, Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Gar C. Graham, Associate District Judge.
In an appeal from a conviction of Indirect Contempt of Court wherein the contempt alleged is violation of a court order granting grandparental visitation, it is held that 21 O.S.1971 § 568 provides that it is mandatory that an order of confinement resulting from a contempt of court requires a written order made a matter of record and that the order set forth the substance of the offense.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Robert J. Unruh, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellant.
D. Hays Foster, Oklahoma City, for appellees.
From a conviction and sentence of eleven days in the Oklahoma County jail for the offense of indirect contempt of court, Charles R. Hampton prosecutes this appeal. The order out of which the alleged contempt arose was a domestic relations modification order granting appellant custody of his children, thereby changing the custody previously resting in Mr. Hampton's former wife. That modification also granted the maternal grandparents reasonable and seasonable visitation. The maternal grandparents instituted the contempt proceeding. The presiding judge, after refusing appellant a continuance to properly prepare his case, informed appellant he could have a jury trial on the contempt action but that while awaiting the next jury term, he would place entire custody in the maternal grandparents, divesting appellant of his rights under the modification order in the interim as a result of any demand for jury trial. Evidence disclosed that in about a five-month period, the grandparents saw the children four times. From the bench, the trial authority found appellant guilty of contempt and orally sentenced him to 11 days with no purge allowed, and denied bail pending appeal. A writ of habeas corpus to admit appellant to bail was granted by this Court. The appellant's designation of record specifies the entire lower court record in the contempt proceeding, and no place therein does this Court find a journal entry of judgment complying with 21 O.S.1971 § 568, or for that matter, any journal entry at all. The item most closely resembling that indispensable document is a "Temporary Commitment" form signed, not by the Judge, but by the Court Clerk. 21 O.S.1971 § 568 clearly states:
Whenever a person shall be imprisoned for contempt the substance of the offense shall be set forth in the order for his confinement, and made a matter of record. (E.A.)
In the case of Ex parte...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sommer v. Sommer
...the judgment and sentence become final. First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Ada v. Arles, 1991 OK 78, 816 P.2d 537, 539; Hampton v. Hampton, 1980 OK 46, 609 P.2d 772. The order in this case is not ¶5 However, this Court may exercise its discretion to review certain interlocutory trial court or......
-
Lay v. Ellis, 115,992
...Sommer v. Sommer, see note 6, supra; FirstNat. BankandTrustCo. ofAda v. Arles, 1991 OK 78, ¶ 5, 816 P.2d 537 ; See also, Hampton v. Hampton, 1980 OK 46, ¶ 1, 609 P.2d 772.13 A contempt proceeding to satisfy an award of support alimony is constitutionally permissible [under Okla. Const. Art.......
-
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Ada v. Arles, 67477
...of an order. An order in contempt proceeding is thus not appealable until the judgment and sentence become final. See Hampton v. Hampton, 609 P.2d 772 (Okla.1980). The finding that this was not an appealable order, however, does not necessarily preclude that its substance be reviewed. We cu......
-
Depuy v. Hoeme
...supra note 24 at 702. A terminal disposition of a contempt proceeding qualifies as a "final", appealable decision. Hampton v. Hampton, Okl., 609 P.2d 772, 773 [1980].37 A successor judge can memorialize the adjudications of a predecessor judge. See City of Clinton v. Keen, 192 Okl. 382, 138......