 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wheeler11/1/2005
concluded Defendant was in contempt of the magistrate and ordered Defendant be incarcerated in the custody of the Sheriff of Pitt County for thirty days credit and fined in the amount of $500. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends the superior court erred when it denied his motions to dismiss and punished him for criminal contempt. We disagree. An appeal from a summary finding of contempt in district court is reviewed de novo by a superior court. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-17 (2003). The de novo hearings are plenary proceedings that must be conducted in accordance with section 5A-15 of the North Carolina General Statutes. "It has long been held that when reviewing a contempt order de novo, the superior court reviews the facts and law, and additional testimony can be heard." State v. Ford, 164 N.C. App. 566, 569, 596 S.E.2d 846, 849 (2004). This Court has held that a trial court's order holding a person in criminal contempt of court must indicate that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard has been applied to the court's findings of fact. Id. "It is well settled that in contempt proceedings the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing on their sufficiency to warrant the judgment." Glesner, 73 N.C. App. at 597, 327 S.E.2d at 62.
In the present case, Defendant does not argue that there was insufficient competent evidence to warrant him being found guilty of criminal contempt, only that the magistrate failed to provide him with notice and an opportunity to respond to its charge pursuant to section 5A-14(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes. Defendant's appeal to this Court, however, is from the proceeding in the superior court, which was a de novo plenary hearing for contempt pursuant to section 5A-15 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Therefore, Defendant's specific argument regarding the magistrate's action or inaction ismisplaced. The superior court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant used "inappropriate profane language before the magistrate[;]" the magistrate warned Defendant that he could be held in contempt; that the magistrate informed Defendant of the punishments that might be imposed for contempt; that Defendant continued his contemptuous conduct before the magistrate; and that the magistrate found Defendant in contempt of court. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to dismiss, and ultimately concluding Defendant was guilty of criminal contempt.
No error.
Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|