Matter of Siracusa

In the Matter of Richard A.

SIRACUSA, Appellant.

No. 80-923. Tatem, D.C., James H. Washington, appellant. District of Appeals. Columbia Court of Mosteller, Robert P. Public Defender Ser- Reargued Nov. 1982. vice, D.C., Washington, amicus curiae. Decided March Regina McGranery, Atty., C. Asst. U.S. D.C., Washington, Stanley with whom S. Harris, Atty., Alan D. U.S. Strasser Voelker, Attys., Kathleen E. Asst. U.S. brief, D.C., Washington, were on the appellee. NEWMAN,

Before Chief MACK, Judges. KELLY and PER CURIAM: May is a This of our decision 24,1982 to affirm the conviction appellant’s hold now as we court.1 We then, suspension sentence is a final in a case for purposes right appeal. We hold today appellant’s noncompliance giving court order him 15 minutes to attend to another matter was not contumacious. Accordingly opinion our in this previous case is vacated.

Appellant, a member of the Bar of Columbia, appeared Superior District of Murphy Tim Court before Honorable approxi- trial. He mately jury 10:00 a.m. for if he be excused asked could appear for a few minutes to before in courtroom 24 for a Donald S. Smith hearing in United States v. M-2134-80, for 10:00 No. also scheduled but said that Judge Murphy agreed, a.m. he wanted back in his courtroom Appellant trial. jury 10:15 to start left. thanked the court and court- entered Appellant His client’s room at called and Ms. Cun- already case had standing ningham Siracusa, 445 A.2d 663 409 with her attorney, George other fully Dreos.2 know if Mr. was Dreos informed Earlier, appellant had Ms. Cunningham told the details of the case.3 that he would not hearing at the matter advise- taking After the under and that Mr. represent Dreos on would her ment, found Judge Murphy appellant guilty all charges. Appellant place took his beside of court. contempt Appellant criminal his courtroom, client at the front of the warning, a stern but imposition received plea the proceeding continued. Appellant appeal- was suspended. sentence The plea hearing past lasted 10:15. ed was contempt and his conviction af- While appellant 24, was in courtroom Appellant then filed a petition firmed. Murphy’s law telephoned clerk rehearing. Smith’s courtroom appellant to inform that he was wanted in courtroom 39 for trial. I He was informed law of the After submission briefs clerk that the proceeding ap- involving government, citing Cys, the 362 pellant was still in progress. Appellant tes- (D.C.1976), A.2d to dismiss moved tified that the hearing ended at about jurisdiction on the that a ground for lack hearing While the transcript indi- imposed citation with no sanction contempt 10:20, cated that the hearing concluded at appealable is not an final order.4 the reporter court subsequently certified error; transcript the the was in in fact defendant, charged who Cys, was plea hearing did not terminate until 10:35. with unlawful claimed as cause for entry, over, After the plea proceeding appel- was of the that he had ex- dismissal lant to Judge Murphy’s returned from cluded the first offender treatment jury where the waiting. way was hisOn program derogation rights of his to due back courtroom, to the appellant encoun- laws. process equal protection tered Judge clerk on Murphy’s law who was In order to test in the court of appeals his way to find him. question allegations in the whether Judge Murphy were appellant called defendant’s motion insufficient bench and informed him he cognizable by intended to claim raise a constitutional hold him contempt. court, On framed issue the court appellant ordered to show citing “techni- prosecutor, Cys, cause he why should not be held in con- contempt comply cal” for his refusal to tempt coming to court twenty minutes discovery directing produce order him to after he was directed to return. first relating written memoranda to the Id. at 727-28. program. offender hearing the show cause on June nor did it make Cys, court did not sentence 1980, Judge Murphy asked wheth- any written order. any findings or enter er he had informed that he Judge Smith appeal, On a division of this court held was under an to return to sanction, “[ajbsent of a Murphy’s Appel- courtroom before 10:15. term in fine, probation it be a or whether lant replied that he do did not so because in and jail, a citation for criminal courtroom, when he entered the the plea no is not a final order and raises proceeding itself already underway. was He also Id. 728-29 presence justiciable appeal.” testified that he felt issue for hearing necessary added). he (emphasis because represented Appellant agreement Ms. communicated the substance charges her, secretary. against through some of Mr. while Dreos Mr. represented Dreos her on others. brief, that, government in its 4.We note arrange- jurisdiction Appellant expressly court had stated that this worked out case, citing Clayton respect charges ment with to the on which to consider only States, represented and had 429 A.2d 1381

Here, the government sought appeal pronouncement contends that since sentence, i.e., the trial expressly suspended disposition Ap- of the case. imposition of sentence after citing appellant pellant appealing therefore is a final for contempt, imposed. no sanction appeal timely since his judgment and Therefore, government asserts, noted, there is jurisdiction.5 we have no appealable order, final consequently jurisdiction court lacks to consider this II appeal. We disagree, suspension for the of of in present Failure counsel to imposition of sentence is a au disposition at times requires court such as the court (1981). thorized under D.C.Code 16-710 § duty professional constitutes a breach of disposition giv Such a terminates the judicial of disruption and often causes the ing right Clay of appeal. defendant a duty is process. professional Breach of this States, 4, ton supra v. United 429 note A.2d contempt. How punishable by criminal 1384; States, at see Thomas v. 129 United ever, adjudication must be based on such an A.2d (D.C.Mun.App.1957). 852 appear timely to finding failure In Clayton States, v. supra, United willful, of reck was result deliberate or appellant of plea guilty. entered a The professional of disregard obligations. less trial suspended imposition of sentence Simple noncompliance with a court order judgment entered no formal of convic- In re does not meet standard. See

tion. Appellant later moved dismiss the to 1360, (D.C.1977). Denney, A.2d 1363 charges against him, relying part in on In to Siracusa’s decision remain re Cys, supra, by asserting that because the until the conclu Judge Smith’s courtroom trial discipli- court attached no or sanction unreasonable sion of the was not an nary imposi- condition to suspension of equally choice three unattractive between sentence, tion judgment of no of conviction to He could have elected alternatives. was pronounced. We determined that since to courtroom in order Judge leave Smith’s suspension was of sentence This 24 on time. return to courtroom sentencing alternative authorized under have required course of action would (now (1973) D.C.Code D.C.Code 16-710 § as well as disre abandonment of client (1981)), suspension imposi- 16-710 § Alternatively he Judge Smith. spect for tion of sentence was a final from proceeding interrupted could have appeal. Clayton which a defendant could v. In difficulty. of his to advise States, 1384, United at cit- supra, A.2d facts, to decision light these Siracusa’s ing States, v. supra. Thomas The not courtroom does remain in negate absence of a not formal sanction did willful, or reckless institute a deliberate Moreover, distinguished conviction. we obligation. disregard professional Cys, which did involve any disposition not Reversed. 16-710, noting under that it addressed § right only the issue whether there was a KELLY, dissenting: appeal pronouncement before of sen-

tence. disposition jurisdic- majority’s not differ bar, appeal there tional on does Clayton, the case at as issue opinion. original 16- that of the division disposition was a authorized under § Siracusa, 445 A.2d 665-66 suspended imposition 710. The trial court Rehearing sentence, unchallenged. holding “an for That appropriate alternative objec- granted, my over criminal This terminating case.” Id. is division of a memo- tion, on the basis presumably like where Cys, a case consequences Cys often se- unique. of such convictions are is We to make it 5. The wish vere; subject appeal they as judges should be clear have an right. pronounce matter of sentence in cases. The

4H randum from the Public willing Defender Service was more than to proceed. The as amicus curiae in support appellant’s pleas court continued with the to one count alternative petition (false or for pretenses) indictment felony rehearing en banc. Contempt violation, is the issue and to the an pro- BRA extended here. The case is uncomplicated; respon- ceeding during Smith, in his dent’s dereliction is question manner, clear —the is customary interrogated careful whether his conduct of, was contumacious. understanding as to her enter, willingness pleas.2 and her Respondent began a trial point respondent entered the court- Tim Murphy and a jury May room, nothing but since said we must The following morning, upon rely the court’s statement its con- a.m., 9:58 he asked to be excused to attend respondent clusion that to another matter.1 That matter was a A throughout plea. most of the plea hearing ease of United States for sentencing agreed upon date and M-2104-80, No. set before respondent left. Judge Donald S. Smith at 10:00 a.m. Re- spondent acknowledges that he did not ar- transcript plea proceeding, of the Judge rive in 10:07, Smith’s courtroom until which Judge Murphy had before him at the by which time his absence had been dis- contempt hearing, that it at says concluded cussed at length by Smith, Judge Mr. majority 10:20 a.m. The writes that “the Dreos, George Assistant United States At- reporter certified that subsequently Paul torney Knight Wecher, error; and Mr. who transcript in in fact the represented Ms. Cunningham in yet hearing another terminate until 10:35.” case set for sentencing that morning. Mr. according This is indeed so to an attach- Dreos was counsel on felony a multi-count ment to the amicus memorandum.3 I clari- indictment; Mr. Siracusa was counsel on in fy change only the record because I misdemeanor Bail Reform anticipate Act violation. that it will come as much of a Judge Smith was told that as far back as surprise judge to the trial as unortho- the time of arraignment respondent had dox to was to submission this court me. said he would not be at the appears trip Now it that took which close hearing and that Mr. Dreos could handle to Murphy seven minutes from to Smith the matter for him. He had so informed took no time at all to Murphy, from Smith Knight, Mr. Dreos, Mr. Mr. Wecher and his respondent having reappeared for trial also client, Cunningham, who, asked, Ms. when at 10:35.4 colloquy mately checking The actual was: a.m. was 10:20 accurate. date, my Honor, may the calendar for that notation indi- MR. SIRACUSA: Your I be ex- go unequivocally proceedings Judge— cused to to cates that the end- just My your THE at a.m. COURT: We’re about ed 10:35 certification that to start proceedings case. terminated based, Honor, just upon MR. SIRACUSA: Your for a an few 10:20 a.m. had been estima- length proceedings minutes. of of and was tion right. THE All COURT: Be back in error fifteen minutes. you. MR. SIRACUSA: Thank majority 4.The seems not have considered Cunningham pled guilty had earlier weigh remand for effect ques- another case and was familiar with the surely development. late It is a fact to be tions asked. significance, Ser- for even the Public Defender vice, original deploring division hold- while reporter

3. The court states: us, validity by telling ing, albeit concedes its your request, my I have examined appears here, It knows. to me that as in Hunt, v. re 155, 157(D.C.1976), 367 A.2d “[t]he properly appel trial court inferred from STATES, Appellee. UNITED explanation lant’s actions and his FIELDS, willfully Appellant, and deliberately substituted Tilman own direct order of represented court even his actions though STATES, Appellee. UNITED straighten faith good attempt out conflicting 81-43, other two Nos. 81-282. sayI again respondent’s courts.” deci Appeals. Columbia Court District of give priority sion choice, proceeding reflected “deliberate 29, 1983. March the importance based on assessment of NEWMAN, Judge; KEL Chief Before matters. This was not his conflicting FERREN, NEBEKER, MACK, LY, KERN, Gregory, to make.” 387 A.2d choice TERRY,* Associate PRYOR, BELSON clearly There is suffi YEAGLEY, Associate Judges; and to support cient evidence in this record Retired. deliberate, or, least, finding of a at the very obliga disregard professional a reckless

tions. ORDER petition appellee’s On consideration agree urgent

I that there is an need banc, appearing and it cooperation be- en understanding mutual necessity” opinion suggests indeed. standard? —curious “actual almost order, Murphy’s contempt case, a far far would be different —and affirmed, help. might finding be of easier — clearly proper. have would Judge Smith’s pointed out that not even It is much, Having pro- I conceded as find the temerity. clerk had such particular act this fessed confusion as to which originally it deemed contumacious —was * Judge Terry participate in scheduling improper action that created a newly imposed of a matter. conflict? it a violation notes grace, that with lack and records in the States v. J. course, 15 min- had Mr. Siracusa waited heard before the Honorable Of completion Donald utes after the of the matter Smith to determine Judge plea proceedings Murphy’s when the to return to on that date con- Smith my Murphy he about cluded to ascertain whether certifica- court or had lied to they approxi- proceedings, tion were concluded at of those as the duration lawyers Superior in the judges The above recital is relevant insofar tween only bears on respondent’s explanation Understanding requires as it an intelli- Court. each; his failure to Murphy’s return to obligations for the gent concern appointed hour, with its in meet- cooperation presupposes flexibility emphasis heavy alleged complex on the na to be ing obligations. appears What those the pleas, arranging ture of his lead role in dealing the manner of most in lacking them, necessity and the of his presence discipline is a short of many conflicts taken. suggested respon when It is preserve also which serves dent, judge faced with a conflict between a remedy is elu- of the court. The integrity presiding progress over a trial sive, however, to the consci- and is best left client, to a fell into inadvertently court. judges of that entious efforts trap he could not He escape. I would affirm. could not mid-plea abandon his client being unprofessional without disre and/or spectful to could he Judge Smith. Neither so unwise to “irritate” as by interrupting proceedings explain plight.5 stayed. My guess is So (again for the judges) benefit of some such lurk considerations beneath ipse majority opinion, dixit but who POWELL, Appellant, E. James

Case Details

Case Name: Matter of Siracusa

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Mar 16, 1983

Citation: 458 A.2d 408

Docket Number: 80-923

Court Abbreviation: D.C.