In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason, 2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 80

Attorney Craig Cascarano retained to represent a client in Anoka County could not attend a scheduled uncontested omnibus hearing and arranged for another lawyer to appear; that substitute mistakenly failed to appear.
The hearing judge, citing concerns about efficiency and judicial resources, ordered Cascarano to pay $100 in court costs and denied his motion to rescind.
The district chief judge disqualified the hearing judge from the criminal matter and stayed enforcement of the $100, noting that punishment for untimeliness or scheduling errors in criminal cases must follow contempt statutes.
The hearing judge then issued a new order directing Cascarano to immediately pay $100, disavowing reliance on contempt statutes and invoking inherent judicial authority.
Cascarano sought a writ of prohibition; the appellate panel treated the petition as a timely appeal and reviewed whether the judge had authority to summarily impose court costs.
The court reversed, holding the judge lacked authority to summarily impose the punitive cost without complying with Minnesota’s contempt statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court judge has inherent authority to summarily order an attorney to pay court costs as punishment for failing to appear at a routine uncontested criminal hearing	Cascarano: judge lacked inherent authority; punitive sanction here is subject to contempt statutes and required procedures	Hearing judge: inherent authority permits imposing costs to sanction counsel for failure to appear; this was not contempt and did not require contempt procedures	Court: No. The order was punitive and akin to criminal contempt; inherent authority is limited by chapter 588 and constructive contempt cannot be summarily punished without statutory procedures
Whether counsel’s failure to appear could be summarily punished as direct contempt or required constructive-contempt procedures	Cascarano: failure to appear was not direct contempt in the court’s presence and therefore required statutory procedures and safeguards	Hearing judge: asserted summary imposition of costs under inherent authority without invoking contempt statutes	Court: Counsel’s absence is, at minimum, constructive contempt when facts and reasons are not known to the judge; constructive contempt cannot be summarily punished and requires statutory protections (prosecution, hearing, jury where applicable)

State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 2013) (defining limits of inherent judicial power and test for necessity to perform judicial function)
State v. Tatum, 556 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 1996) (distinguishing summary punishments under sections 588.01-.15 from criminal contempt under section 588.20)
State v. Jones, 869 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 2015) (discussing chapter 588 and contempt classifications)
Knajdek v. West, 153 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1967) (counsel’s failure to appear can constitute constructive contempt)