State v. Buchanan

Decision Date28 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 21941,21941
CitationState v. Buchanan, 304 S.E.2d 819, 279 S.C. 194 (S.C. 1983)
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Jasper BUCHANAN, Appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, and Sol. J. Dupre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant alleges the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing him for two acts of contempt. We affirm one conviction and sentence but reverse the other.

Appellant is serving a twenty-five year sentence for armed robbery and a consecutive thirty-year sentence for manslaughter. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. State v. Buchanan, Op. No. 80-MO-43; Buchanan v. State, Op. No. 82-MO-336.

The present appeal arises from an incident which occurred during a meeting with appellant, the trial court, and an attorney from the Attorney General's office. The meeting concerned several motions that appellant had filed in the Darlington County Clerk of Court's office. Apparently, appellant had drafted the motions without an attorney's aid, and, at best, they were vague and confusing. Consequently, the Attorney General's office was unable to determine in what action appellant had filed the motions. As a result, the court called the meeting to determine appellant's intentions.

During the meeting, the trial court determined that appellant had attempted to make several motions: a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for appointment of counsel. Appellant was not represented by counsel at the meeting, but the court appointed one to represent him at his subsequent proceedings. 1

Appellant interjected objections throughout the meeting, alleging that he had been denied due process and equal protection because the state and the court did not have the papers he had filed, because he did not have an attorney present, and because the state had not prepared his case. The court attempted to explain that the appellant was not on trial, that the meeting was merely to clarify the motions, and that an attorney would be appointed to represent him in any adversary hearings.

Although appellant's conduct throughout the meeting revealed he was frustrated, his behavior did not reach the contempt level until the meeting was adjourning. Then the following altercation occurred:

Mr. Buchanan: I move - - - (as he grabs documents)

Court: I'll hold you in contempt of court if you make another - - -

Mr. Buchanan: Hold it. I move that I be moved out of here.

The court immediately held appellant in contempt and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment to run consecutive to his current sentence. Within a few seconds, appellant asked that the judge recuse himself because he was prejudiced and would not give appellant a fair trial. The court then sentenced appellant to a second six-months term.

We conclude that the first altercation constituted criminal contempt, but the second one did not. The power to punish for contempt, inherent in all courts, is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings. Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 287 S.E.2d 915 (1982). Appellant's behavior displayed a lack of respect for our judicial system. The judge properly convicted and sentenced appellant for that contemptuous outburst. However, we conclude appellant's request that the judge recuse himself did not constitute contempt.

Therefore, we affirm one conviction and sentence of contempt, and reverse the second. Because appellant's sentence for criminal contempt consists of one six-months term of imprisonment, he is not entitled to a jury trial. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • State v. Passmore
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 22, 2005
    ...has held a defendant charged with a serious as opposed to a petty criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial."); State v. Buchanan, 279 S.C. 194, 304 S.E.2d 819 (1983) (finding that defendant's sentence of six months in prison did not entitle him to a jury trial and citing Here, Appellan......
  • State v. Hardy
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...proceedings and defendants are not asked to plead to charges or to make statements to be used at trial. State v. Buchanan, 279 S.C. 194, 304 S.E.2d 819, 820-821 (1983). See Presnell v. State, 241 Ga. 49, 243 S.E.2d 496, 505 (1978), cert. denied [on this issue], 439 U.S. 14, 99 S.Ct. 235, 58......
  • State v. Havelka
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1985
    ...punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings. State v. Buchanan, 279 S.C. 194, 304 S.E.2d 819 (1983). A person may be found guilty of direct contempt if his conduct interferes with judicial proceedings, exhibits disresp......
2 books & journal articles
  • Summary Contempt Power in the Military: A Proposal to Amend Article 48, UCMJ
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 160, June 1999
    • June 1, 1999
    ...1996); S.C. CODE ANN. § 14-1-150, 14-1-160, 14-5-320 (Law Co-op 1998); State v. Weinberg, 92 S.E.2d 842 (S.C. 1956); State v. Buchanan, 304 S.E.2d 819 (S.C. 1983); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 16-15-2, 22-2-6, 22-6-2, 23A-38-1 (Michie 1998); TENN. CODE ANN. § 29-9-102 (1998); TENN. R. CRIM. P. 42;......
  • B. Offenses Against Public Justice
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter V Other Offenses
    • Invalid date
    ...punish for contempt is broad, and a pair of cases demonstrates that such authority is not bound by technical rules. In State v. Buchanan, 279 S.C. 194, 304 S.E.2d 819 (1983), the Court found that a trial judge acted properly in finding the defendant in contempt during a "meeting" between th......