U.S. v. Woodberry

• Decision Date: 27 October 2009
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 5:07cr00025-DCB-JCS.
• Citation: 672 F.Supp.2d 761
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff v. Vinson Eric WOODBERRY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

672 F.Supp.2d 761

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff v. Vinson Eric WOODBERRY, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 5:07cr00025-DCB-JCS.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division.

October 27, 2009.

Sandra G. Moses, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff.

Latrice Westbrooks, The Law Office of Latrice Westbrooks, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

Pursuant to a sua sponte Order, a criminal and civil contempt hearing concerning Attorney Latrice Westbrooks ("Westbrooks") was held in Natchez, Mississippi, on August 26, 2009. Having carefully considered the witnesses' testimonies and the evidence presented in light of all applicable law, the Court finds and orders as follows:

I. Background and Procedural History

The original action that gave rise to the contempt hearing was Westbrooks' failure to appear on behalf of her client Vinson Woodberry ("Woodberry" or "defendant") at a sentencing hearing on June 16, 2009, and failure to attend the rescheduled sentencing on July 2, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the Court appointed the Honorable Dennis Joiner ("Joiner"), Federal Public Defender, or any assistant public defender to review the file of the defendant due to the absence of Westbrooks at the June 16, 2009, sentencing. Westbrooks was the defendant's attorney of record at all times prior to June 24, 2009.

The circumstances relevant to this Order date back to April 2, 2008. Originally, a Trial Order was entered on April 2, 2008, setting the case of United States v. Vinson Woodberry for trial on June 3, 2008. On May 30, 2008, a continuance was requested by the defense and an agreed order was entered stating that the defense requested additional time to prepare for trial. The trial was reset for August 5, 2008. On July 30, 2008, a second continuance was requested by the defense and an agreed order was entered stating that the defense needed additional time to prepare for trial and the trial was reset for October 6, 2008. On September 26, 2008, a third continuance was requested by the defense stating that the defense attorney's office had been flooded and an agreed order was entered resetting the trial for December 8, 2008. On December 1, 2008, a fourth motion for continuance was filed by the defense stating that the defense needed additional time to prepare for trial due to the damaged office. The trial was then reset for January 28, 2009. On January 21, 2009, the defendant requested a change of plea hearing, which was set for February 3, 2009. The change of plea took place on February 3, 2009, and Westbrooks was present. Woodberry pled guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine base ("crack") in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

At the change of plea hearing, a sentencing date was set for April 21, 2009. On March 9, 2009, the sentencing date was reset to May 19, 2009. On May 1, 2009, the defense filed a motion for continuance of sentencing due to defense counsel being on medical restrictions. A continuance was granted on May 14, 2009, and sentencing was reset for June 16, 2009. On Friday, June 12, 2009, the defense filed a motion at 6:21 p.m. requesting that the sentencing set for June 16, 2009, be continued and reset. On Monday, June 15, 2009, Debra Jackson, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, contacted Westbrooks by telephone and advised her that the motion was not received until that morning and that the sentencing was not going to be continued and would remain set for June 16, 2009, at 3:30 p.m. Westbrooks advised that she would not appear in court. In total, the Court accommodated Westbrooks by granting at least five (5) continuances sought by her on behalf of her client.

Due to Westbrooks' absence on June 16, 2009, the Court reset the defendant's sentencing to July 2, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order stating "at said sentencing Latrice Westbrooks should be prepared to explain to the Court why she should not be held in contempt for failing to appear on the 16th day of June, 2009. Honorable Dennis Joiner, Federal Public Defender, or any assistant public defender is hereby appointed to review the file and make such reports to the Court as may be requested." Despite the Order and the accommodations already granted to Westbrooks and her client by the Court, Westbrooks failed to appear at the sentencing hearing on July 2, 2009. At the sentencing on July 2, 2009, the defendant was represented by the Honorable Abby Brumley of the Federal Public Defender's office. The defendant was sentenced to a 57-month sentence for a conviction of one count of distribution of cocaine base ("crack") in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

In addition to her failure to appear at the sentencing hearings, Westbrooks also failed to appear at a meeting on February 24, 2009, with Kevin Wright, Probation Officer, to discuss the Pre-Sentence Report prepared for the defendant. More significantly, she lodged no objections to the Pre-Sentence Report on behalf of her client and, consequently, Woodberry faced guideline calculations without the benefit of acceptance of responsibility or the safety valve provision of the guidelines. As a result, he faced a Level 30 with a Sentencing Range of 97 to 121 months. After the June 24, 2009, Order appointing Public Defender Joiner to review the defendant's file, Joiner contacted Westbrooks concerning the defendant. He offered his assistance, which was accepted, but Westbrooks informed Joiner that she had more pressing matters to attend, that the defendant would be in jail for a long time, and that she would not be at the sentencing on July 2, 2009. (R. at 61-63). Thereafter, the Public Defender and his staff represented Woodberry, filing objections to the Pre-Sentence Report on his behalf. The objections summarily resulted in the defendant receiving both acceptance of responsibility and the safety valve reduction which reduced the Guideline Sentencing Range from 97 to 121 months to 57 to 71 months. As said, the defendant received a 57-month sentence.

On July 21, 2009, the Court held a hearing in Jackson, Mississippi, giving Westbrooks notice of a contempt hearing to be held in Natchez, Mississippi, on August 26, 2009, allowing her a reasonable time to prepare a defense. The Court explained that the contempt hearing would involve both civil and criminal contempt of court issues for her failure to appear in court in Natchez, Mississippi, for Woodberry's sentencing hearings—June 16, 2009, and July 2, 2009—as well as for her suspected lack of adequate representation of the defendant. The Court also stated that if sufficient evidence was presented at the hearing to hold Westbrooks in criminal contempt, the Court might assign the matter to another judge for final disposition.

The Court issued an Order on July 29, 2009, stating the specific issues that Ms. Westbrooks should be prepared to address at the contempt hearing. Those issues were:

1. Why did Westbrooks fail to appear in court on June 16, 2009, for Woodberry's sentencing hearing?

a. Why did Westbrooks fail to provide notice of her alleged inability to appear until Friday, June 12, 2009?

2. Why did Westbrooks fail to appear in court on July 2, 2009, for Woodberry's sentencing hearing?

3. How many times did Westbrooks consult with Woodberry about this case?

a. How long did each meeting last?

b. Where did each meeting take place?

4. How much did Westbrooks charge Woodberry and his parents for her services in this case?

5. Why did Westbrooks fail to meet with the probation officer and/or the public defender's office to review Woodberry's presentence investigation report?

Also, at the hearing on July 21, 2009, Ms. Westbrooks indicated that the retainer fee Woodberry and his parents paid also included her services in state court proceedings against Woodberry. Therefore, Ms. Westbrooks was required to address the following additional issues at the hearing on August 26, 2009:

6. What is the nature of the charges against Woodberry in the State Court?

a. What is the current status of those charges?

7. How many times did Westbrooks meet with Woodberry about the state case?

a. How long did each meeting last?

b. Where did each meeting take place?

8. How much did Westbrooks charge Woodberry and his parents for her services in the state case?

9. To what extent did Westbrooks' work in the federal case overlap with her work in the state case?

On August 26, 2009, this Court held a contempt hearing in Natchez, Mississippi, concerning the issues outlined above. Westbrooks was represented by the Honorable Dennis Sweet at the hearing.

II. Analysis

A. Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt

1. Civil Contempt

In failing to appear at the sentencing hearings on June 16, 2009, and July 2, 2009, Westbrooks deliberately ignored orders of this Court. When a court issues orders which are disobeyed, "the recalcitrant may be cited, according to the circumstances, for criminal contempt or civil contempt or both." Norman Bridge Drug Co. v. Banner, 529 F.2d 822, 827 (5th Cir.1976). "Whether a contempt is civil or criminal turns on the `character and purpose' of the sanction involved." United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) (citation omitted). A civil contempt sanction is one that is remedial in nature and used to enforce compliance with a court order or to compensate an injured party for losses sustained as a result of the contemptuous action. Id.; Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). On the other hand, the punishment for criminal contempt is punitive and is used to vindicate the authority of the court. United Mine Worker's, 512 U.S. at 828, 114 S.Ct. 2552.

To hold a respondent in civil contempt, it must be found by clear and convincing evidence that "(1) a court order was in effect, (2) the order required specified conduct by the respondent, and (3) the respondent failed to comply...