Valley v. State
2016 Ark. 443
| Ark. | 2016Background
- State charged Sherrie Currie with abuse of an adult; James F. Valley entered appearance as defense counsel.
- Circuit court entered a scheduling order (signed by Valley) setting jury trial for Oct. 22, 2015.
- On Oct. 21 the court found Currie competent after a mental-evaluation hearing and ordered trial to begin Oct. 22 at 9:00 a.m.; Valley asked for delay and the court denied it.
- Valley told the court he would not be present because he had been subpoenaed as a witness in a Phillips County District Court trial occurring the same time.
- Valley did not appear for Currie’s trial on Oct. 22; the court empaneled jurors, released them, and issued an order to show cause for contempt against Valley.
- At the contempt hearing Valley admitted he received the subpoena Oct. 19, did not move to quash that subpoena, did not move for a continuance in Craighead County, and appeared as a witness in Phillips County; the circuit court found him in criminal contempt, fined him $500, and ordered restitution for juror costs and prosecutor expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Valley's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Valley’s failure to appear violated a valid court order | Valley: could not be held in contempt because he was under subpoena in another court; scheduling order was invalid because trial readiness was improper after competency proceedings | State: scheduling order was valid and binding; Valley willfully disobeyed by failing to pursue available remedies or notify/coordinate with other court | Court: Affirmed contempt—scheduling order valid; Valley’s absence was willful and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the subpoena in another court excuse[d] contempt | Valley: subpoena justified nonappearance | State: subpoena did not excuse him because he failed to move to quash or seek a continuance and failed to notify/coordinate with the other court | Court: Subpoena alone does not excuse contempt when counsel fails to seek relief or communicate; Perroni controls |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Pulaski Cty. Circuit Ct., 439 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for criminal contempt and refusal to look behind order)
- Perroni v. State, 186 S.W.3d 206 (Ark. 2004) (attorney’s simultaneous trial obligations and contempt where counsel failed to address conflict with both courts)
- Etoch v. State, 964 S.W.2d 798 (Ark. 1998) (exception where contemnor successfully challenges validity of underlying order)