Jones, In re, Cr. 8042

• Decision Date: 01 May 1975
• Docket Number: Cr. 8042
• Citation: 120 Cal.Rptr. 914,47 Cal.App.3d 879
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re Robert Green JONES on Habeas Corpus.

Page 914

120 Cal.Rptr. 914

47 Cal.App.3d 879

In re Robert Green JONES on Habeas Corpus.

Cr. 8042.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

May 1, 1975.

[47 Cal.App.3d 880] Joseph D'Addario, San Diego, for petitioner.

Robert G. Berrey, County Counsel, by Anthony Albers, Deputy County Counsel, San Diego, for respondent.

OPINION

BY THE COURT ^*

Robert Green Jones petitions for writ of habeas corpus. He was found in contempt of court and sentenced to jail. This court ordered him released from jail on his own recognizance after serving nine days and issued an order to show cause.

On January 29, 1975 the San Diego County Superior Court found Jones in contempt of court for failing to obey, for four months, a court order he support his child. The court minutes state:

'Respondent found guilty of 4 counts of comtept (sic). Sentenced to 20 days custody 5 days each count consecutive . . .. Court finds Resp. 'A' (letter) marked for I D, rec'd in evidence . . ..'

That same day the court signed an 'Order Remanding to Sheriff' which stated:

'Respondent sentenced to five days custody on each of four counts, for a total of 20 days custody. Sentence on four counts to be served consecutively. Commitment order to follow.'

Jones went to jail. The court signed an 'Order and Commitment for Contempt (Punitive)' February 6, after his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court had been denied and after his petition for a writ had been filed in this court.

A valid judgment of contempt must meet strict requirements and must show facts essential to establish jurisdiction for the making of the order, the defendant's knowledge of the order, his ability to comply, and his willful disobedience (In re Hinman, 239 Cal.App.2d 845, 850, 49 Cal.Rptr. 162). Neither the order to the sheriff nor the court minutes quoted above are sufficient. Neither is an order which specifies the offense with particularity as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1218 (In re Mancini, 215 Cal.App.2d 57, 59, 29 Cal.Rptr. 796). ¹

The question is whether the order made 8 days after defendant was committed is proper. We find it unnecessary to judge the contents of the order.

Although respondent states the February 6 order has been 'entered into the records of the Superior Court,' and although it bears a file stamp of the superior court, it does not appear in the superior court record. Code of Civil Procedure section 1218 requires 'the conviction, specifying particularly the offense, and the judgment thereon, must be entered in the docket.' The docket here is the permanent minutes of the court and the February 6 order has not been entered there.

Although the court may have been justified in committing Jones from the courtroom, the court should have signed and entered the final judgment of contempt expeditiously. Until judgment of contempt was signed and entered, Jones had nothing against which to test his commitment. The court's statement in its order to the sheriff indicates the judgment of conviction was not finalized and until then it was 'but a purpose in the breast of the judge which can be changed as he may determine' (...