Warriner, Matter of

• Decision Date: 03 October 1983
• Docket Number: No. 68990,68990
• Citation: 417 Mich. 1100,338 N.W.2d 888
• Parties: In the Matter of the Contempt of John WARRINER, John Warriner, Appellant. PEOPLE of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff, v. Edmond Francis DESMOND, Defendant. 417 Mich. 1100.26, 338 N.W.2d 888
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 888

338 N.W.2d 888

In the Matter of the Contempt of John WARRINER, John

Warriner, Appellant.

PEOPLE of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff, v. Edmond Francis DESMOND, Defendant.

No. 68990.

417 Mich. 1100.26, 338 N.W.2d 888

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 3, 1983.

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and, [417 MICH1100. 26] pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reduce the punishment for contempt to five days of confinement. The matter is REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a modified judgment pursuant to this order. In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED.

CAVANAGH and BOYLE, JJ., not participating.

[417 MICH1100. 27] RYAN, Justice, dissents and states as follows:

In July of 1980, John Warriner was held in contempt by the Honorable M. John Shamo, then a Judge of the Traffic and Ordinance Division of the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit, for disruptive behavior in the presence of the court and while the court was in session. He was sentenced to confinement for 30 days.

The trial court's order is as follows:

"That one John Warriner of 32960 Parkdale, Wayne, Michigan, appeared in the courtroom of the Honorable Judge M. John Shamo on the seventh day of July, 1980, and did create a disturbance by saluting and shouting in the courtroom and raising his fist in the air as prisoners were being lead [sic ] out of the courtroom by police officers; that the actions and conduct of the aforesaid John Warriner disrupted the decorum and orderly procedures of the court whereupon the defendant was found guilty of contempt of court committed in the presence of the court and sentenced to serve thirty (30) days at the Detroit House of Correction."

After examining the legal issues raised on appeal, the Court of Appeals found no legal error in the contempt adjudication or in the sentence and affirmed. In re Contempt of Warriner, 113 Mich.App. 549, 317 N.W.2d 681 (1982).

My colleagues, who likewise find no error and without the statement of any reason, have changed the sentence to one of confinement for five days. The Court assigns no reason for its action. No suggestion is made that the sentence imposed by the trial court was unlawful, inappropriate, excessive, or an abuse of discretion. Neither is there any suggestion that this Court has any authority to resentence the defendant for criminal contempt even if it found that the sentence originally imposed was unlawful. It is a novel notion of appellate review of contempt proceedings which suggest that if the assembled Justices of the Supreme Court at this remove from the April 7, 1980, uproar in Judge Shamo's court do not think they would have imposed the same sentence, they may simply change it without pretense or citation of authority to do so.

This same course was followed by this Court in 1976 in Contempt of Lewis, 397 Mich. 846 (1976). In that case, an adjudication of contempt before the Sixty-Third Judicial District Court resulted in a sentence of 20 days confinement and the imposition of a fine and costs. This Court declared that "the sentence for contempt is affirmed as to fine and costs, but is affirmed for only three days of confinement". In dissent, I stated:

"Asked to review the lawfulness of the trial court's adjudication that Mr. Lewis is guilty of contempt of the trial court's order, this Court instead, sua sponte, reduces the confinement portion of the [417 MICH1100. 28] sentence imposed from 20 days to 3 days--and does so without the slightest suggestion that either the adjudication of contempt or the sentence rests upon any error of law or fact, or abuse of discretion.

"Today's substitution of appellate judgment for trial court judgment as to the...