In re Shamsiddeen

• Decision Date: 09 March 2023
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-01217-SCT
• Parties: IN RE: ALI M. SHAMSIDDEEN
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

1

IN RE: ALI M. SHAMSIDDEEN

No. 2021-CA-01217-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi, En Banc

March 9, 2023

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/30/2021

HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. ELEANOR JOHNSON PETERSON TRIAL JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALI M. SHAMSIDDEEN (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY CASEY B. FARMER

GRIFFIS, JUSTICE

¶1. Attorney Ali Muhammad Shamsiddeen appeals the trial court's Order of Contempt and Order Denying Motion for Recusal. This Court finds no error and affirms.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Michael Sorrell was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Sorrell v. State, 284 So.3d 765, 766 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). Sorrell was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and ten years on the possession conviction. Id. at 766-67. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed Sorrell's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Id. at 767. ¶3. After numerous continuances Sorrell's new trial was scheduled for April 5, 2021. On the morning of trial, Sorrell's then-counsel, Kevin Camp, failed to appear, and a show cause order was issued. Camp was terminated as defense counsel.

¶4. On April 13, Shamsiddeen entered an appearance as counsel for Sorrell. By agreement of all parties, the trial was rescheduled for September 27. The trial court advised that no further continuances would be granted and that the case would proceed to trial on September 27. An order setting the case for trial on September 27 was entered April 16.

¶5. On August 18, Shamsiddeen moved ore tenus for a continuance. Shamsiddeen's request was denied. On August 31, Shamsiddeen filed a motion to continue trial. At the pretrial motion hearing on September 1, Shamsiddeen reasserted his motion to continue. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court explained that this case "was ready for trial in April when either [Camp] was fired or abandoned his representation of [Sorrell]" and that "this setting nearly five (5) months later was specifically set after discussion with both the State and defense."

¶6. Beginning September 14, multiple subpoenas were issued by the State to various witnesses in anticipation of trial on September 27.

¶7. On September 21, Shamsiddeen contacted the court administrator and advised that he had the coronavirus^[1] and would not be able to appear at the pretrial conference scheduled for September 22. Shamsiddeen was advised that he could participate virtually in the pretrial conference and would be provided a link for that participation.^[2] Shamsiddeen was instructed to provide to the trial court documentation "from a healthcare provider that counsel [wa]s infected with the coronavirus and that he [wa]s symptomatic not asymptomatic."

¶8. On the morning of September 22, Shamsiddeen did not appear in person or virtually at the pretrial conference. Later that morning, Shamsiddeen emailed the court administrator a statement from a medical provider. The medical statement, dated September 21, did not include a diagnosis or confirm any medical condition. Instead, the medical statement listed the nature of the illness or injury as "medical" and noted that Shamsiddeen would "be able to return to work/school on 10-11-21." After the pretrial conference, the trial court entered an order denying Shamsiddeen's motion to continue trial filed August 31.

¶9. On September 24, the Friday before trial, the trial court sent both counsel an email regarding the status of the trial. The email stated, To counsel for the State and Defense:

The Court was notified two (2) days ago that defense counsel has the coronavirus. The Court requested that defense counsel provide the court with confirmation from a healthcare provider that counsel is infected with the coronavirus and that he is symptomatic not asymptomatic. The Court has not received the confirmation requested. Although counsel provided a medical excuse it did not confirm any medical condition but only stated he should be on leave until October 11th, 2021.

The Court does not accept this information as confirmation that counsel has the coronavirus and as such the case will proceed on Monday, September 27th, 2021. Defense counsel has until noon today to produce confirming medical documentation to the court so that the court may release prospective jurors for Monday. If the documentation is not produced all parties should be prepared to proceed with jury selection Monday at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom 2.

Shamsiddeen did not respond to the email or provide the requested documentation.

¶10. On Sunday, September 26, the day before trial, Shamsiddeen sent the following email to the trial court, which we repeat, verbatim:

To Honorable judge E.

This email is in response to the latest communication from this court concerning my quarantine. I supplied as noted by this court, the order from my doctor about my medical release until my quarantine is over, which is indicated as October 11, 2021. The doctors [sic] orders falls within the guidelines of HIPPA regulations. As should be noted, a doctor cannot divulge a patients [sic] illness or medical records to be broadcast to the world. However, I will for further clarification, for this court, have my doctor add quarantine to his order. The doctors [sic] concern is not only for my health but for the welfare of the general public who may come into contact with me, which is his responsibility. The status of my illness is private and primarily the doctors [sic] concern. The doctor has determined that my exposure to the general public may be hazardous and possibly even deadly for those who may come into contact with me. With that being said, I will abide by my doctors [sic] orders and remain quarantined until my doctor releases me.

Sincerely and with all due respect

Ali Shamsiddeen MSB101013

¶11. On September 27, the State and Sorrell appeared in court for trial. Shamsiddeen did not appear. When asked by the trial court if he had counsel, Sorrell stated, "No, ma'am. . . . Only thing he told me, he was in . . . medical quarantine, something like that. . . . And he ain't been answering so. . . ."

¶12. The trial court ultimately released the jury panels. Before the jury panels were released, Shamsiddeen had someone from the City of Jackson's legal department hand deliver a medical statement. The medical statement, dated September 27, is identical to the medical statement dated September 21, with the exception of the word "quarantine" added to the nature of the illness or injury.^[3] ¶13. The trial court made a record of the events that had transpired and stated, "once a person brings in their diagnosis or medical history into play as an excuse before this Court, they need to produce what is ordered and directed by the Court. The Court's website has sufficient information for any attorney who knows the policies and practices of this Court." The trial court further stated,

Mr. Shamsiddeen has not appeared today. He was directed as all counsel w[ere] to be here at one o'clock today. As such, Mr. Shamsiddeen shall be assessed the costs for the jurors, all jurors, who are subpoenaed to appear today for jury duty that could have been excused had he complied with the Court's notice. . . . He will further pay any cost of any witnesses that were subpoenaed by the State of Mississippi for this matter who are having to be excused today. This case will be continued to a date in November and there will be no further continuances.

¶14. The trial court entered an Order of Contempt finding Shamsiddeen in direct criminal contempt of court for his failure to appear at trial. Shamsiddeen was assessed a $100 fine, $4,893.84 in costs for the jurors, and $625 in costs for the State's witnesses.

¶15. Shamsiddeen filed a motion for recusal and asked the trial judge to recuse from the case. The trial court found no merit to Shamsiddeen's motion and denied the motion for recusal. The court noted that Shamsiddeen had mischaracterized the events but that "[d]espite his efforts, counsel's mischaracterizations d[id] not negate the facts that he failed to appear, failed to communicate and failed to comply with an Order of the Court."

¶16. Shamsiddeen timely appealed to this Court. On appeal, Shamsiddeen argues the trial court erred (1) by finding him in direct criminal contempt and (2) by denying his motion for recusal.

DISCUSSION

I. Contempt

¶17. "[W]hen [an] appeal involves a conviction of criminal contempt[,]" "this Court proceeds ab initio to determine whether the record proves the appellant guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt." Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So.2d 794, 797 (Miss. 1994) (citing Lamar v. State, 607 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss. 1992)). "The burden of proof to establish that contempt has been committed is on the party asserting that it has. In a proceeding for criminal contempt, evidence of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt." Brame v. State, 755 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Miss. 2000) (citations omitted) (quoting Terry v. State, 718 So.2d 1097, 1103 (Miss. 1998)).

¶18. "The imposition of punishment for contempt of court is within the discretion of the trial court." Wyssbrod v. Wittjen, 798 So.2d 352, 359 (Miss. 2001) (citing Gebetsberger v. East, 627 So.2d 823, 826 (Miss. 1993)). "Mississippi law clearly supports a court's power to sanction an attorney or party for violation of court orders, and, more specifically, for failure to appear as ordered by the court." Id. (citing Alviers v. City of Bay St. Louis, 576 So.2d 1256 (Miss. 1991)).

¶19. Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, which "applies to both civil and criminal contempt arising in a criminal action," discusses and defines contempt. MRCrP 32.1(...