Thompson v. State
2016 Ark. 383
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Attorney Theodis N. Thompson, Jr. represented Michael Baker in Prairie County; a hearing was set for September 22, 2015, which Thompson said he could not attend because of a CLE and filed a motion for continuance.
- The circuit court held a September 22 hearing in which neither Thompson nor Baker appeared; prosecutor prepared an order to show cause charging Thompson with contempt for failing to appear.
- The State filed a petition and a petition (with a certificate of service) was mailed September 24, 2015; the court ordered Thompson to appear November 17, 2015.
- At the November 17 hearing Thompson appeared for the revocation hearing, disputed receiving notice of the order to show cause, and argued he had filed a continuance motion; the court found the certificate of mailing sufficient and proceeded.
- The circuit court adjudged Thompson guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 24 hours’ incarceration; Thompson served the sentence, filed a motion for new trial (denied), and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson received constitutionally adequate notice of the criminal-contempt charge | Thompson: he lacked proper notice of the order to show cause and therefore was denied due process | State: service by first-class mail (certificate of service) satisfied Rule 5 and was sufficient; appeal moot because sentence served | Court: first-class mailing of the petition did not establish constitutionally adequate notice of the order to show cause; record does not show notice of the order itself; conviction reversed and dismissed |
| Whether the appeal is moot because Thompson already served the sentence | Thompson: appeal not moot; statutory and appellate rules preserve right to direct appeal from misdemeanor convictions | State: appeal moot per Swindle because sentence already served | Court: mootness does not bar direct appeal of a criminal conviction after confinement; overruled Swindle to the extent inconsistent |
| Proper remedy when notice/Due Process violated in a criminal-contempt proceeding | Thompson: seek reversal and remand for further proceedings | State: (implicit) if reversal, remedy uncertain; appeal moot | Court: reversed and dismissed the contempt conviction on due-process grounds (majority declines remand to avoid double-jeopardy concerns) |
| Applicability of civil procedural service rules to contempt proceedings | Thompson: criminal-contempt proceedings governed by Ark. Code § 16-10-108, not Ark. R. Civ. P. 5 | State: attempted to rely on Rule 5 certificate of mailing | Court: rules of civil procedure do not govern criminal-contempt notice; strict statutory and constitutional notice protections apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Conlee v. Conlee, 370 Ark. 89 (discussing standard of review and substantial-evidence standard in contempt cases)
- Witherspoon v. State, 322 Ark. 376 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Swindle v. State, 373 Ark. 518 (addressing mootness of contempt appeals; majority here limits/overrules to extent inconsistent)
- Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137 (due-process requirement that alleged contemnor be notified of contempt charge and its specific nature)
- R.P. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 333 Ark. 516 (civil rules inapplicable to criminal-contempt proceedings)