Brandon Mockbee v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 298
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mockbee, charged with Level 5 felonies and an habitual-offender allegation, chose to represent himself with standby counsel and filed numerous motions the trial court deemed frivolous.
- At a November 29, 2016 final hearing, Mockbee repeatedly interrupted, taunted counsel, made gestures and faces at the judge, and used profanity when ordered removed from the courtroom.
- The judge found Mockbee in direct contempt, announced an initial six-month sanction, then announced an additional six months after further interruptions, totaling one year.
- The trial court’s written order imposed two separate six-month contempt sentences (total 180 days + 180 days) for continued disruptive behavior after the first citation.
- On appeal Mockbee challenged the multiplicity and length of the contempt sanctions, arguing his conduct constituted a single episode and that punishment beyond six months without a jury was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mockbee’s conduct constituted direct contempt | State: Court had firsthand, immediate knowledge of disruptive acts undermining proceedings and properly found direct contempt | Mockbee: Behavior did not amount to multiple contemptuous acts warranting separate punishments; amounted to one continuous episode | Court: Affirmed direct contempt finding but held conduct was a single episode, not multiple contempts |
| Whether multiple contempt citations in one proceeding can be punished separately | State: Multiple disruptive acts justify separate citations and consecutive sentences | Mockbee: Multiple citations were for the same continuous misconduct and cannot be stacked | Court: Multiple punishments for a single contemptuous episode are improper; vacated second citation |
| Whether judge could impose more than six months for criminal contempt without a jury | State: Contempt power permits summary punishment but must respect limits | Mockbee: Sentence beyond six months required jury determination | Court: Where conduct is a single episode, maximum summary contempt sentence is six months; remanded for sentence not exceeding six months |
| Remedy for improperly multiple contempt sentences | State: Concurrent service or judge's discretion for consecutive sentences | Mockbee: Vacate extra sentence and limit to six months | Court: Vacated second contempt finding and ordered a single six-month sentence (to run consecutive to criminal sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopping v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind. 1994) (defines direct criminal contempt and recognizes inherent contempt power)
- Carroll v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate deference to trial courts on contempt findings)
- In re Nasser, 644 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. 1994) (contemptuous acts oppose court authority, justice, and dignity)
- Holly v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (upholds contempt for profanity directed at the court; discusses six-month summary limit)
- State v. North, 978 A.2d 435 (Vt. 2009) (analyzes single contemptuous episode vs. discrete contempts; factors: time, place, single objective)
- Matter of Craig, 552 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (contempt sentence should be the least power adequate to remedy the disruption)
- Smith v. State, 855 A.2d 339 (Md. Ct. App. 2004) (example where multiple contempts in one hearing were treated as separate)
- United States v. Murphy, 326 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2003) (discusses risk of cumulative contempt sentences producing excessive punishment)