State v. Langford
260 Or. App. 61
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- In Dec. 2010 the trial court sentenced defendant to complete 10 days of “Community Service as an additional condition of your sentence” using a standardized form that listed separate checkboxes for "Community Service" and "Work Crew." The court crossed out the words "work crew" in the phrase "work crew/community service."
- Defendant later reported to the county work-crew office; the work-crew manager testified defendant refused to perform any community service, saying he was "unable to do anything." Defendant said he offered to perform other forms of community service but refused work crew because of a detached retina and doctors’ instructions.
- The state charged defendant with punitive contempt for violating the 2010 order. At the contempt hearing the contempt court took judicial notice of the 2010 order and found defendant in contempt, reasoning that work crew is a form of community service and the work-crew director could assign community-service designees to work crew.
- The contempt court ordered defendant to complete 12 days on work crew and pay supervision fees; defendant completed the service and worked additional hours instead of paying the fees.
- On appeal, defendant argued the trial-court order exempted him from work crew (so refusing work crew could not be contempt), while the state argued the order simply required 10 days of community service and allowed assignment to work crew; alternatively, the state argued the record established defendant refused any community service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 order authorized assignment to work crew | The order required 10 days of community service; work crew is a form of community service and officials could assign him to work crew | The form distinguishes "Community Service" from "Work Crew" and the court crossed out "work crew," so defendant was exempt from work crew | The order unambiguously exempted defendant from work crew; contempt court erred in treating work crew as encompassed by the order |
| Whether defendant voluntarily failed to comply with the order by refusing work crew | Refusal of work crew equaled refusal of community service and thus contempt | Refusal of work crew did not violate the order because the order excluded work crew; refusal therefore not contempt | Because the order excluded work crew, refusing work crew could not constitute the required voluntary failure to comply (but see next issue) |
| Whether the evidence showed defendant refused all forms of community service | Manager testified defendant refused any community service; thus contempt proven | Defendant testified he offered other community service and was not allowed alternatives | The record contains evidence that could support either finding, but the contempt court never resolved that factual conflict because it rested its decision on the legal error about work crew; remand for new trial is required |
| Mootness and collateral consequences | Case moot because defendant served 12 days | Contempt stigma and procedural protections mean appeal not moot | Appeal not moot; punitive contempt carries stigmatic collateral consequences and procedures akin to criminal proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 327 Or. 568, 966 P.2d 208 (Or. 1998) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to the state on sufficiency review)
- State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121, 873 P.2d 316 (Or. 1994) (recognizing deference to prevailing party's version of disputed facts in trial-court findings)
- State v. Hauskins, 251 Or. App. 34, 281 P.3d 669 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (punitive-contempt sanction completion does not necessarily render appeal moot due to stigma and criminallike procedures)
- State v. Trivitt, 247 Or. App. 199, 268 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (preservation of challenge to legal sufficiency of evidence supporting contempt)
- State v. Barboe, 253 Or. App. 367, 290 P.3d 833 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishing when appellate review is legal error vs. sufficiency-of-evidence review)
- Frady v. Frady, 185 Or. App. 245, 58 P.3d 849 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (elements the state must prove for punitive contempt: valid order, knowledge, voluntary noncompliance)