In Re Bowens, 308 Ga. App. 241

Bowens cited for criminal contempt for wilful violation of a February 16, 2010 court order to transport four named inmates by 9:00 a.m. on February 17, 2010.
Court evidence showed Bowens had notice, discussed the order with a deputy, and directed only two inmates to be transported by 9:00 a.m.
Bowens testified staffing shortages and safety concerns prevented full compliance, despite evidence of substantial personnel and resources under his control.
Judge Lane testified Bowens's failure to comply hindered the court's hearings and administration of justice.
After the contempt hearing, the County sought to intervene regarding a prior order that had allocated Bowens's attorney fees and costs; the judge later voided that order sua sponte, which this court vacates to the extent it affects the prior fee order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Bowens's violation wilful beyond a reasonable doubt?	Bowens disobeyed a clear order.	Lack of personnel made compliance unsafe.	Yes, wilful violation proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did lack of funding negate wilfulness and ability to comply?	Bowens had notice and could comply with resources.	Insufficient personnel made compliance unsafe.	No; evidence showed sufficient ability to comply.
Was County's opening statement and cross-examination properly allowed?	County allowed to proceed with intervention-related arguments.	Insufficient notice; objection to opening statement.	Harmless error; no reversible prejudice; cross-examination permissible.
Did judge err by sua sponte voiding the prior attorney-fees order?	Order remains valid pending intervention ruling.	Judge could reconsider after intervention denial.	Vacate that portion; prior fee order not properly voided.
Should the decision to deny intervention affect the contempt ruling?	Contempt proven independently of intervention ruling.	Intervention ruling relevant to fee order only.	Contempt affirmed; fee-order reversal vacated.

Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244 (1977) (inherent power to enforce court orders by contempt; max penalties cross-referenced to statute)
OCGA § 15-6-8(5), — (—) (statutory authority for contempts in superior courts)
Thomas v. Dept. of Human Resources, 228 Ga. App. 518 (1997) (proof of wilfulness and ability to comply required beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re Irvin, 254 Ga. 251 (1985) (standard of review for criminal contempt; trier of fact credibility determinations remain with the trial judge)
Reece v. Smith, 292 Ga.App. 875 (2008) (trial judge credibility and fact-finding in contempt proceedings)
Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746 (2007) (remedy for allegedly erroneous order is appeal, not disobedience)