Skolnick v. State
Decision Date | 25 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3-1076A233,3-1076A233 |
Parties | Sherman H. SKOLNICK, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below), and Saul I. Ruman and Richard J. Lesniak, Appellees (Intervenors Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Sherman H. Skolnick, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Saul I. Ruman, Hammond, for appellee.
On July 29, 1975, in an eight-page order of the Porter Superior Court, Sherman H. Skolnick was convicted three times of direct criminal contempt. For each conviction Skolnick was sentenced to thirty days' incarceration in the Porter County Jail and fined $100.00. Skolnick contends that the three direct contempt convictions are invalid because:
I. he was denied due process of law;
II. the trial judge was without jurisdiction to convict Skolnick of direct contempt;
III. the convictions abridged Skolnick's right to freedom of speech;
IV. the trial judge erred in permitting Ruman and Lesniak to intervene in Skolnick's case;
V. the trial judge was biased against Skolnick.
Having examined the issues presented, we affirm two of the direct contempt convictions and reverse one of them.
The present appeal concerns three of six direct contempt convictions against Skolnick in the Porter Superior Court during July of 1975. We have already addressed and disposed of the three other contempt convictions: Skolnick v. State, PSC 354 (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 1156, wherein we affirmed his two direct contempt convictions of July 16, 1975, and Skolnick v. State and Ruman and Lesniak, PSC 356 (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 1156, wherein we affirmed a conviction for direct contempt occurring July 21, 1975. The facts necessary for a determination of the instant case are as follows:
Skolnick filed in the Porter Superior Court on July 25, 1975, a motion for reconsideration of his July 21, 1975 direct contempt conviction. Skolnick also filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Strike and Expunge," in which he sought to strike two pleadings and two court orders relating to earlier direct contempt proceedings against him. In Paragraphs Four and Five of this latter pleading, Skolnick charged that the trial judge and local attorney Ruman sought to "connive and confederate" against Skolnick in order to cover up their alleged corruption in two earlier, unrelated cases.
On July 28, 1975, the trial judge set Skolnick's motions for hearing on July 29, 1975. Skolnick was notified of the date and time of the hearing. On July 29, Skolnick filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Submit Previous Motions Without Oral Argument." The substance of this motion was as follows:
Skolnick's presence in Pivarnik's courtroom to falsely imprison Skolnick, without specific charges made or legal requirements as specified by Burns 34-4-7-7 (3-907) (IC 1971, 34-4-7-7 (Burns Code Ed.)). Skolnick believes it is unsafe for him to further physically be present in Judge Pivarnik's courtroom that Pivarnik intends to further falsely imprison Skolnick, all to be done by Pivarnik under the sham and pretense of legal proceeding, without authority or jurisdiction, and in violation of Skolnick's rights, privileges, and immunities, made actionable under the Federal Civil Rights acts, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983, et seq.'
The July 29 hearing on these motions proceeded in Skolnick's absence. During the hearing the trial judge found Skolnick in direct contempt three times for (1) contumacious statements made in his motion to strike and expunge; (2) contumacious statements made in his motion to submit previous motions without oral argument; and (3) Skolnick's part in certain allegedly contumacious activities. These findings were reduced to writing in an order dated July 29, 1975:
Expunge' the following pleadings and orders:
served had severe misgivings with reference to the possibility that his unprecedented corrupt conduct in the East Chicago case, the Apple Valley Village fraud, and other notorious swindles and frauds would be exposed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bottoms v. B & M Coal Corp., 1-379A63
...Wayne Community Concerts, Inc., (1963) 243 Ind. 521, 188 N.E.2d 274, Denny v. State, (1932) 203 Ind. 682, 182 N.E. 313, Skolnick v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 986.8 Because of this conclusion we need not address another issue raised by appellants, i. e., whether the trial court shou......
-
Skolnick v. State, 381S75
...Court receives this case on a petition to transfer from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals October 25, 1979, and recorded in 397 N.E.2d 986. On July 29, 1975, the appellant was convicted of three counts of direct criminal contempt by the Porter Superior Court. The Court of Appeals ......