2022 COA 3
Colo. Ct. App.2022Background
- Pueblo County Child Support Services registered a 2004 Iowa support order and moved in 2018 for an indirect contempt citation against Joshua Broyhill for about $11,929 in arrears, seeking an indefinite remedial jail term (up to six months) conditioned on payment.
- The contempt citation informed Broyhill he could be represented by an attorney at his own expense; Broyhill repeatedly told the court he was indigent and requested court‑appointed counsel.
- The trial court denied appointment, treating the proceeding as remedial (civil) and concluding Gideon/Argersinger counsel rights did not automatically apply to remedial contempt.
- At a hearing Broyhill proceeded pro se while CSS was represented; the court found him in indirect contempt, stayed a 30‑day jail sentence conditioned on future compliance, and made sparse findings about his ability to pay.
- On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals held that when a governmental entity initiates an indirect contempt proceeding and imprisonment is an available remedial sanction, an indigent alleged contemnor has a due‑process right to appointed counsel; the court reversed and remanded for an indigency inquiry and, if indigent, appointment of counsel and a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indigent alleged contemnor in a state‑initiated indirect contempt (child‑support enforcement) proceeding with possible remedial imprisonment is entitled to appointed counsel at state expense | Broyhill: indigent and facing incarceration; Sixth Amendment/Due Process require appointed counsel where jail is possible | CSS/Trial court: proceeding is remedial civil contempt; Turner limits automatic right to appointed counsel in civil contempts | Court: Yes — in state‑initiated indirect contempt where jail is an available remedial sanction, indigent defendant has right to appointed counsel under due process balancing (Mathews/Elridge) |
| Whether the trial court must inquire into an alleged contemnor’s indigency before denying appointed counsel | Broyhill: court should determine indigency and appoint counsel if indigent | Trial court: no inquiry required because no automatic right in remedial contempt | Court: Trial court violated due process by refusing to inquire; must determine indigency on remand and appoint counsel if indigent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (establishes right to appointed counsel in state felony trials)
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (extends right to counsel to misdemeanor cases resulting in imprisonment)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (Due Process does not automatically require counsel in civil contempt for child support but requires procedural safeguards; left open state‑initiated proceedings)
- People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970 (discusses civil vs. criminal contempt distinctions in Colorado)
- People ex rel. State Eng'r v. Sease, 429 P.3d 1205 (clarifies C.R.C.P. 107 post‑1995: direct/indirect contempt and remedial/punitive sanctions)
- People v. Lucero, 584 P.2d 1208 (Colo. 1978) (held right to counsel in contempt proceedings that may result in imprisonment)