Ex parte H. Chase Dearman, [Ms. 1180911, June 26, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). On certiorari
review, the Court (Mendheim, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Bryan,
Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., concurs in the
result) reverses the Court of Criminal Appeals’s affirmance of the
Mobile Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt against attorney
Chase Dearman relating to his actions in stating an objection in a probation
revocation hearing. “Direct contempt” is defined in Rule 33.1(b)(1),
Ala. R. Crim. P., as “... disorderly or insolent behavior or other
misconduct committed in open court, in the presence of the judge, that
disturbs the court’s business, where all of the essential elements
of the misconduct occur in the presence of the court and are actually
observed by the court, and where immediate action is essential to prevent
diminution of the court’s dignity and authority before the public.”
Ms. *6, n. 3. The scope of appellate review on the issue of direct contempt
is limited to questions of law and, if there is any evidence to support
its finding, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. Ms.
*10, citing
Holland v. State, 800 So. 2d 602, 604 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
The Court concludes the affirmance of the circuit court’s finding
of direct contempt was in conflict with
Hawthorne v. State, 611 So. 2d 436 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) and that there was no evidence
to support it:
... the record is devoid of any evidence that Dearman’s conduct “disturb[ed]
the court’s business” and that “immediate action [was]
essential to prevent diminution of the court’s dignity and authority
before the public.” Rule 33.1(b)(1). The evidence before us indicates
that Dearman, by trying to make an objection on the record to preserve
the issue for appellate review, was simply trying to engage the court
in the business before it, not detract from it. The immediate action taken
by the circuit court in silencing Dearman was not to prevent Dearman from
diminishing the court’s dignity or authority, but to prevent Dearman
from asserting a necessary objection on behalf of his client. When finally
given the opportunity to present mitigating evidence as to why Dearman
continually attempted to state his objection on the record ... Dearman
specifically stated that his intent was “only to fulfill my duty
as the advocate for my client.”
Ms. **16-17.