Mockbee v. State
Decision Date | 19 July 2017 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 15A01-1701-CR-22 |
Citation | 80 N.E.3d 917 |
Parties | Brandon MOCKBEE, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Leanna Weissmann, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Chandra K. Hein, Deputy Attorney General.
Statement of the Case
[1] Brandon Mockbee ("Mockbee") appeals the trial court's finding that he was twice in direct criminal contempt of the court and the trial court's sentence that Mockbee serve one year in jail. Mockbee argues that his behavior did not rise to the level of a contemptuous act required for two findings of direct contempt and that the trial court was not authorized to sentence him to more than six months in jail for direct contempt without a jury trial. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding Mockbee in direct contempt. However, because we conclude that there was only one continuous act of contempt, we reverse the trial court's finding of two acts of contempt and remand to the trial court to enter a sentence of six months.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Mockbee raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether his behavior constituted a single episode of contempt.
[3] In July 2016, the State charged Mockbee with two counts of Level 5 felony burglary and one count of Level 5 felony conspiracy to commit burglary, and it alleged that he was an habitual offender. Mockbee was initially represented by counsel, but he then chose to represent himself and had two attorneys acting as standby counsel. Mockbee filed numerous motions, most of which the trial court described as "frivolous and repetitive." ( Tr. 40 ). As a result, the trial court held "almost 40 hours" of hearings on his motions. ( Tr. 40 ). Mockbee was removed from the courtroom during those hearings "for disruptive and threatening behavior" and was warned about his constant unruly actions. ( Tr. 39 ).
[4] On November 29, 2016, the trial court held a final hearing on Mockbee's pending motions, which included a motion to suppress and a motion to sever. Mockbee represented himself, and, during the hearing, he interrupted the judge, confused the witnesses, and asked questions that had previously been answered. During an attempt to play a video, Mockbee taunted opposing counsel by stating, ( Tr. 39 ). The court interjected that it had "had enough" of Mockbee's behavior and noted for the record that Mockbee was "constantly interrupting the Court on a continuing basis" and "ha[d] been warned by the Court countless times for his disruptive behavior." ( Tr. 39 ). The trial court noted that Mockbee's behavior was "a deliberate attempt to make a circus of our legal system" and found that Mockbee had forfeited his right to self-representation. ( Tr. 41 ).
[5] The hearing then continued with Mockbee's standby counsel representing him. While Mockbee's counsel was speaking, Mockbee "ma[de] some kind of gesture with his hand or finger" to the trial court, and made "glaring, smirking remarks" and "face gestures at the Court." ( Tr. 50 ). Mockbee again interrupted the trial court and counsel during the proceeding and had to be reminded that his counsel was now representing him. The trial court warned Mockbee that he would be removed from the courtroom if he continued his disruptive behavior. Mockbee again interjected when the trial judge was speaking and was ordered to leave the courtroom. Mockbee then said, "[f]uck you," as the officers removed him. ( Tr. 51 ). The trial judge had the officers bring Mockbee to the bench where the following exchange occurred:
( Tr. 51 - 53 ). After Mockbee left the courtroom, the trial court noted that his "behavior at this time ha[d] continued" and that the trial court was "not going to subject the parties or a jury to this kind of behavior...." ( Tr. 53 ). The trial court found that Mockbee was in "direct contempt" and that "he w[ould] be sentenced accordingly[.]" ( Tr. 53 ). The hearing then continued without Mockbee present.
[6] On December 5, 2016, the trial court entered its order of direct contempt. The trial court "found [Mockbee] in contempt and ordered a sentence of one hundred and eighty (180) days and ordered an additional one hundred and eighty (180) days for continued actions, words, and disruptive behavior." (App. Vol. 2 at 47). The trial court ordered "two separate sentences" of six months "based upon defendant's failure to cease his disruptive behavior after the imposition of the first contempt sentence." (App. Vol. 2 at 49). Mockbee now appeals.1
[7] Direct criminal contempt citations are available where "the court has firsthand and immediate knowledge of acts demonstrating a clear disregard for its authority which threaten to undermine the integrity of the judicial process and impede the performance of court work." Hopping v. State , 637 N.E.2d 1294, 1297 (Ind. 1994). Indeed, "[a ]ny act which manifests a disrespect and defiance of a court may constitute direct criminal contempt." Id . (emphasis in original). Id . at 1296. "On appeal, we afford great deference to trial courts' contempt decisions." Carroll v. State , 54 N.E.3d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Accordingly, we accept as true the statements of facts entered by the trial court. Id .
[8] We note that the direct contempt statute provides, in relevant part, that:
I.C. § 34-47-2-1. "Indiana courts have long held that ‘[d]isorderly conduct, insulting demeanor to the court, and a disobedience of its orders in facie curiae constitute a direct contempt.’ "2 Carroll , 54 N.E.3d at 1086 (quoting Holman v. State , 105 Ind. 513, 5 N.E. 556, 557-58 (1886) ). "Indiana appellate courts will only interfere with a contempt finding ‘where it clearly appears the acts do not constitute contemptuous acts.’ " Id. at 1085-86 (quoting In re Nasser , 644 N.E.2d 93, 95 (Ind. 1994) ). "Contemptuous acts are those in opposition to a court's authority, justice and dignity." Nasser , 644 N.E.2d at 95.
[9] Contempt sanctions are essential to ensuring that judicial processes are not undermined. Hopping , 637 N.E.2d at 1297. "[W]here no legislative penalty is specified and sentencing is left to the discretion of the judge, as is often true in the case of criminal contempt, the pettiness or seriousness of the contempt will be judged by the penalty actually imposed." Holly v. State , 681 N.E.2d 1176, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). "[S]entences up to six months may be imposed for criminal contempts without guilt or innocence being determined by a jury." Id .
[10] First, it must be noted that from time to time difficult litigants appear in court and disturb proceedings with foul and abusive behavior. During those times, even the most patient judges must use contempt powers to maintain order and the dignity of Indiana's courts. However, contempt powers may not be used to " ‘heal the wounded sensibilities of a judge; it may be invoked only when the offending act impedes or disturbs the administration of justice.’ " Grimm v. State , 240 Ind. 125, 128, 162 N.E.2d 454, 456 (1959) (quoting Francis v. People of Virgin Islands , 11 F.2d 860, 865 (3d Cir. 1926) ).3 When warranted, a contempt citation should be imposed promptly, but it must be kept within prudential limits. Id. at 457. Where the legislature has "prescribed no maximum sentence for criminal contempt, courts have a special duty to exercise their extraordinary contempt powers with the ‘utmost sense of responsibility and circumspection.’ " Matter of Craig , 552 N.E.2d 53, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (quoting United States v. Misenheimer , 677 F.Supp. 1386, 1388 (N.D. Ind. 1988) ). In other words, "a sentence from criminal contempt should reflect the least possible power adequate to the end proposed...." Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
[11] In this case, the record of the November 29, 2016...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wine v. State
...aggregate sentence for criminal contempt could not lawfully exceed 180 days pursuant to this court's opinion in Mockbee v. State, 80 N.E.3d 917, 922-923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), because he did not waive his right to a jury trial. Wine also claimed that appellate counsel was ineffective for the......
-
Hunter v. State
...omitted), and, in selecting contempt sanctions, exercise the least-possible power adequate to the end proposed. Mockbee v. State , 80 N.E.3d 917, 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied ...
-
Grogg v. State
...(2009), to determine whether behavior represented separate, discrete contempts or a single contemptuous episode. Mockbee v. State , 80 N.E.3d 917, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). In North , the Vermont Supreme Court indicated that one should consider the factors of time and place and whether the ......
-
Fearman v. State
...inherent in the courts." Id. Such sanctions are "essential to ensuring that judicial processes are not undermined." Mockbee v. State , 80 N.E.3d 917, 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied . [5] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States through the Fourte......