Bellamy v. State, 952 N.E.2d 263

Bellamy was charged with Class A misdemeanor trespass and Class C misdemeanor unauthorized possession on Aug 9, 2010.
Bellamy failed to timely appear at the Aug 11, 2010 pre-trial hearing, leading to a warrant for his arrest and warning of contempt.
Bellamy timely appeared at the Sept 1, 2010 pre-trial, and trial was set for Nov 8, 2010.
Bellamy again failed to timely appear on Nov 8, 2010, arriving 54 minutes late; the court found direct contempt and sentenced him to five days in jail.
After trial, the court dismissed the trespass charge and found Bellamy not guilty of the Class C misdemeanor; the judgment of contempt was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bellamy's conduct constituted direct criminal contempt	State contends Bellamy's tardiness as to a pending proceeding violated court authority.	Bellamy argues layperson status precludes direct contempt and favors indirect contempt.	Direct contempt affirmed; layperson status does not immunize.
Whether the trial court erred by not allowing explanation for tardiness	State argues no error in omitting explanation.	Bellamy argues he should have been allowed to explain his tardiness.	Waived; proper opportunity was not preserved, and error was harmless.

In re Nasser, 644 N.E.2d 93 (Ind.1994) (direct contempt power is inherent to protect court integrity)
Hopping v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1294 (Ind.1994) (summary direct contempt where firsthand knowledge exists)
Brumbaugh v. State, 491 N.E.2d 983 (Ind.1986) (disrespect and defiance may constitute direct contempt)
Rice v. State, 874 N.E.2d 988 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (layperson lay outside direct contempt for failure to appear)
Williams v. State ex rel. Harris, 690 N.E.2d 315 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (layperson not direct contempt for missed appearance)
Davis v. State, 608 N.E.2d 995 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (better practice to allow explanation; later repealed statute context)