State v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 01 February 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-137
• Citation: 868 S.E.2d 703
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Lydia ROBINSON
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

868 S.E.2d 703

STATE of North Carolina

v.Lydia ROBINSON

No. COA21-137

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 1, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Milind K. Dongre, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Heidi Reiner, for defendant-appellant.

HAMPSON, Judge.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 1 Lydia Robinson (Defendant) appeals from an Order finding Defendant in direct criminal contempt through summary proceedings and ordering Defendant to serve a forty-eight-hour term of incarceration. The Record, including evidence adduced at trial, reflects the following:

¶ 2 Defendant entered the Gaston County District Court magistrate's office on 2 August 2020 seeking a probable cause determination related to alleged death threats Defendant received. After a several-minute exchange, and after Defendant left the magistrate's office, Magistrate Mark Oakes (Magistrate) entered an Order finding Defendant in direct, criminal contempt through summary proceedings and sentenced Defendant to thirty days incarceration. On 4 August 2020, Defendant filed written Notice of Appeal to the Gaston County Superior Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-17. On 23 September 2020, Defendant's case came on for de novo review in Gaston County Superior Court.

¶ 3 The Magistrate testified as the State's only witness. According to the Magistrate, Defendant entered the magistrate's office on the afternoon of 2 August 2020. The Magistrate was "helping other members of the public," and Defendant waited "at the back of the courtroom" until the Magistrate finished helping the other people; there were no other people in the courtroom when Defendant "came to the window." The Magistrate testified he knew of Defendant from an earlier locally-publicized incident which occurred at "Tony's Ice Cream" and that he paid attention to Defendant's Facebook posts.

¶ 4 Defendant attempted to show the Magistrate a "death threat" Defendant had received on her cell phone. The Magistrate informed Defendant that the Magistrate would not look at Defendant's cell phone "because cell phones were not permitted in the courtroom." Defendant replied, "but I have to show it to you, it's on my phone." The Magistrate testified that it was policy to have complainants bring in affidavits for probable cause determinations, but the Magistrate did not explain this policy to Defendant because "[w]e never got to that point."

¶ 5 Defendant read the alleged threat from her cell phone to the Magistrate, but the Magistrate told Defendant, "according to the general statute it wasn't a direct threat." According to the Magistrate, Defendant "didn't like" that determination and became "argumentative" but not "angry." At some point, the Magistrate told Defendant "that she needed to leave and take the cell phone out or I would hold her in contempt." Defendant then "tried to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it" for "two to three minutes." The Magistrate did not say anything to Defendant during the two-to three-minute period because the Magistrate "was waiting for [Defendant] to leave the courtroom." Defendant held her cell phone up in a manner that led the Magistrate to believe Defendant was recording the interaction. Eventually, the Magistrate "shut the blinds ... and said, we're finished." The Magistrate then turned to his colleagues and said, "[Defendant] was the instigator of the Tony's Ice Cream." Defendant "started yelling ... what do you mean, instigator."

¶ 6 Defendant eventually left the courtroom and made it to her car. The Magistrate informed the sheriff's office the Magistrate was "holding [Defendant] in contempt," and Defendant returned to the courtroom in the custody of the sheriff's office. The Magistrate did not conduct any additional proceedings, but "passed the contempt order through and ... gave it to [Defendant]."

¶ 7 Defendant did not present any evidence; however, Defendant moved to dismiss the charge "pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 5A-14, subsection (b)" because the Magistrate had not provided adequate summary notice or an opportunity to be heard before the Magistrate issued its Order. The trial court denied the Motion. On 23 August 2020, the trial court entered its Direct Criminal Contempt/Summary Proceedings/Findings and Order. The trial court sentenced Defendant to forty-eight hours incarceration and gave Defendant credit for forty-eight hours already served. Defendant gave oral Notice of Appeal in open court.

¶ 8 On, 22 October 2020, the trial court entered written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting the Order. The trial court made the following pertinent Findings of Fact:

14. That Magistrate Judge Oakes told the defendant that she was going to have to leave the courtroom and stop arguing with him, or he would hold her in contempt of court.

15. That after being told she would have to leave the courtroom or be held in contempt of court, and after she had earlier been reminded of the posted notice against cell phones in court, and told by Magistrate Judge Oakes to put her cell phone away, the defendant raised her cell phone up in the direction of the magistrate judge to apparently videotape the conversation between the two of them. That Magistrate Judge Oakes again told her she was going to need to stop what she was doing and leave the courtroom, or he was going to hold her in contempt of court. That Magistrate Judge Oakes thus placed her on notice for a second time that if she did not leave she would be held in contempt of court.

16. That the defendant remained in the courtroom for some two to three minutes after being told she would be held in contempt of court if she did not leave the courtroom .... That ... she continued to argue with him, freely expressing herself and being heard in response to being given notice she would be held in contempt of court if she did not leave ....

17. That Magistrate Judge Oakes closed the blinds separating the magistrate's po[r]tion of the facility with the public courtroom, turned to his colleagues and made the statement, "That is the instigator of the Tony's incident". That the defendant was still in the public area of the magistrate's courtroom because Magistrate Judge Oakes heard her begin yelling in the direction of [the Magistrate], including shouting, "What do you mean [‘]instigator[’][?]"

....

19. That Magistrate Judge Oakes testified that he then prepared a written order ... finding the defendant in contempt of court, which appears in the record of the court file. That the imposition of measures in response to the contempt was a sentence of 30 days in the Gaston County Jail. That this order, among other things, states that the magistrate gave defendant a clear warning that the conduct was improper and gave her summary notice of the charges and a summary opportunity to respond

20. That [the Magistrate] testified he then alerted the sheriff's office that he had found the defendant to be in summary criminal direct contempt of court, and asked them to be bring the defendant, who by this time had left the courtroom, back to the magistrate's courtroom. That he testified that the sheriff's deputies located the defendant at her automobile, and escorted her back into the courtroom.

21. That [the Magistrate] testified that at no time did the defendant give an explanation or defense as to why she had her cell phone in the courtroom, in violation of posted court rules, his repeated directives to put it away, or why she appeared to be videotaping her interaction with him.

22. That the defendant was served by the sheriff in the magistrate's courtroom with the written order of contempt sentencing the defendant to jail for 30 days ... and was taken away into custody.

23. That [the Magistrate] testified that he never saw any portion of any video, any livestream, or any pictures from any video made of the interaction ....

¶ 9 Based on these Findings, the trial court concluded:

3. That before finding the defendant in summary direct contempt of court, the presiding judicial official in this case twice gave the defendant summary notice of the charge of summary direct contempt of court, and the conduct she was committing which would constitute such contempt, and subsequently made findings of fact supporting such notice and summary imposition of the measures in response to the contempt. That he found the facts were established beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. That the Court concludes as a matter of law that before imposing measures for direct summary contempt, the magistrate judge did in fact give the defendant a summary opportunity to respond to the contempt by allowing her to talk and argue for two to three minutes after he twice gave her summary notice of the direct summary contempt .... That in arguing with the Court during that two to three minute period after twice being given summary notice of the contempt charge, ... and then arguing with him, "What do you mean, instigator?", the defendant exercised her summary opportunity to respond to the contempt....

....

8. That the Court concludes as a matter of law beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid proceedings the defendant willfully behaved in a contemptuous manner, and the said conduct was direct contemptuous [ ] conduct, appropriately giving rise to the summary direct contempt finding, and conclusion by the magistrate judge.

....

10. That by the magistrate judge giving the defendant summary notice of the charge, affording her an opportunity to respond by arguing with him for two to three minutes ... and arguing with him, "What do you mean, instigator?", were substantially contemporaneous with the aforesaid conduct that constitutes contempt. That under existing North Carolina law, the defendant was therefore not entitled to counsel as a constitutional or statutory right at the direct summary criminal contempt hearing.

Issue

¶ 10 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in...