Summary
discussing the relative weight to be given the caption and body of a judgment
Summary of this case from In re Marriage of PillerOpinion
A164862
04-08-2020
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael Anthony JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Egan, C. J., vice Garrett, J. pro tempore.
PER CURIAM
Defendant admitted to contempt of court, ORS 33.065, for failure to pay child support. The court entered a form judgment that is captioned "Judgment (Misdemeanor/ Violation)." On appeal from that judgment, defendant argues that the judgment caption erroneously indicates that he was convicted of a crime or violation, when he was not. See Johnson/State v. Jung , 255 Or. App. 507, 508, 296 P.3d 1287 (2013) (reversing judgment that "convicted" a defendant of contempt and remanding for entry of a judgment that makes clear the defendant was found in contempt of court); State v. Litscher , 207 Or. App. 565, 568-69, 142 P.3d 549 (2006) (contempt of court is neither a crime nor a violation). Although it is true that we generally treat the body of a judgment as controlling over a conflicting caption, see State v. Larrance , 256 Or. App. 850, 851, 302 P.3d 481 (2013), we agree with defendant that the judgment caption erroneously states that defendant has a judgment of a misdemeanor or violation entered against him and the body of the judgment does not correct that error. We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment that makes clear it is a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment finding defendant in contempt of court.