From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Clardy

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jul 18, 2018
292 Or. App. 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)

Summary

reversing and remanding judgment that reflected conviction rather than finding of contempt

Summary of this case from State v. Shamsud-Din

Opinion

A164223

07-18-2018

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jamin M. CLARDY, Defendant-Appellant.

Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.


Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant appeals from a punitive contempt judgment on 10 counts of punitive contempt. ORS 33.065. The trial court found defendant in contempt on all 10 counts, and it imposed punitive sanctions. Defendant raises two assignments of error on appeal. We reject his first assignment of error without written discussion. On his second assignment of error, we reverse and remand.

In that assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by entering a judgment that refers to the contempt counts as convictions. The judgment lists the contempt counts under the heading "CONVICTION." (Uppercase in original; boldface omitted.) See State v. Larrance , 256 Or. App. 850, 851, 302 P.3d 481 (2013) (reversing and remanding judgment that reflected conviction rather than finding of contempt); State v. Campbell , 246 Or. App. 683, 684, 267 P.3d 205 (2011) (reversing judgment of conviction for contempt because contempt is not a crime). We note also that the judgment is captioned "JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING," which could contribute to the impression that it is a judgment of criminal conviction. (Uppercase in original; boldface omitted.) See ORS 33.105(2) (listing "punitive sanctions"—not sentences—authorized for contempt). The state concedes that "the trial court erred by entering a contempt judgment that referenced a ‘conviction.’ " We agree and accept the state's concession, and we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment using the language applicable to contempt findings.

Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court.


Summaries of

State v. Clardy

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jul 18, 2018
292 Or. App. 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)

reversing and remanding judgment that reflected conviction rather than finding of contempt

Summary of this case from State v. Shamsud-Din
Case details for

State v. Clardy

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMIN M. CLARDY…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Jul 18, 2018

Citations

292 Or. App. 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)
422 P.3d 434

Citing Cases

State v. Shamsud-Din

Contempt is not a crime, and it is error for a judgment to refer to findings of contempt as convictions or…

State v. Dawn

Id. at 20-21. But as defendant acknowledges, punitive contempt is not a crime, and punitive contempt…