Lobb v. Hodges
| Decision Date | 04 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0545,81CA0545 |
| Citation | 641 P.2d 310 |
| Parties | J. D. LOBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kent HODGES, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
Daniel F. Boyle, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Kent Hodges, appeals from the trial court's judgment holding him in contempt for failure to appear and sentencing him to five days in jail. We reverse and remand for further findings.
Defendant was ordered to appear on December 18, 1980 pursuant to C.R.C.P. 69 and failed to do so. A contempt citation was issued against defendant ordering him to appear on March 19, 1981, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and notifying him that a fine or imprisonment might be imposed to vindicate the dignity of the court. Defendant again did not appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was arrested and brought before the court.
At a hearing on May 7, 1981, defendant testified that although he had received the court's orders he did not intentionally disobey them. He had been undergoing financial troubles resulting in several lawsuits and had been forwarding all legal documents to his attorney. His attorney was preparing to file a bankruptcy for him, and he was under the impression that the bankruptcy stayed all pending proceedings and that no court appearances were necessary.
The court found that defendant's failure to appear in answer to the contempt citation was deliberate and that he was therefore in contempt of court. Neither the court's oral findings, nor the written judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus referred to defendant's conduct as being offensive to the authority and dignity of the court.
In order for a court to enter a punitive order for contempt, it must, on supporting evidence, find that the alleged contemner's conduct constitutes misbehavior and that such conduct is offensive to the authority and dignity of the court. Marshall v. Marshall, 35 Colo.App. 442, 536 P.2d 845 (1975), rev'd in part, on other grounds, Marshall v. Marshall, 191 Colo. 165, 551 P.2d 709 (1976). Although a trial court need not make a finding in the exact language of C.R.C.P. 107(d), i.e., "to vindicate the dignity of the court," nevertheless, the language used must be sufficient to comply with the rule. In re Marriage of Joseph, Colo.App., 613 P.2d 344 (1980).
A court before imposing penal sanctions for contempt should proceed with caution and deliberation. The power should be exercised only when necessary to prevent obstruction or interference with the administration of justice. Murley v. Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951).
Although there is no fixed procedural formula for contempt proceedings, Austin v. Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964), the requirement that there be an explicit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barron
...17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 961 (1892).3 A show cause order was the procedure used to formulate the criminal contempt issued in Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo.App.1982); In Re P.R. v. District Court, 637 P.2d 346 (Colo.1981); Harthun v. District Court, 178 Colo. 118, 495 P.2d 539 (1972); Robran......
-
People v. Razatos
...find noncompliance with the court's order and that such conduct is offensive to the authority and dignity of the court. Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310, 311 (Colo.App.1982); Marshall v. Marshall, 35 Colo.App. 442, 445, 536 P.2d 845, 848 (1975), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other gr......
-
In re A.C.B.
...be imprisoned ... should be treated as a criminal prosecution as contemplated by the [S]ixth [A]mendment." (quoting Lobb v. Hodges , 641 P.2d 310, 311 (Colo. App. 1982) )).¶ 33 However, a fairly recent United States Supreme Court case, Turner v. Rogers , 564 U.S. 431, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.......
-
In re Estate of Elliott, 99SA306.
...conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the court and must order imprisonment for a definite period. See Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo.App.1982). The probate court did not follow these requisite measures for punitive contempt sanctions—it did not appoint counsel to Robins......
-
RULE 107
...by the trial court that the contemner's conduct offends the dignity of the court is grounded in constitutional principles. Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo. App. 1982). Finding need not be in exact language of rule. Although a trial court need not make a finding in the exact language of s......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...by the trial court that the contemner's conduct offends the dignity of the court is grounded in constitutional principles. Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo. App. 1982). Finding need not be in exact language of rule. Although a trial court need not make a finding in the exact language of s......
-
Rule 107 REMEDIAL AND PUNITIVE SANCTIONS FOR CONTEMPT.
...by the trial court that the contemner's conduct offends the dignity of the court is grounded in constitutional principles. Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo. App. 1982). Finding need not be in exact language of rule. Although a trial court need not make a finding in the exact language of s......
-
Rule 69 EXECUTION AND PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO JUDGMENT.
...Servs., Inc., v. Goehring, 707 P.2d 1034 (Colo. App. 1985). Applied in People v. Barbour, 639 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1982); Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo. App. 1982); First Nat'l Bank v. District Court, 652 P.2d 613 (Colo. 1982). II. PROCEEDINGS FOR COSTS. Where both parties each have agains......