Angie Ingram v. Judge Henry Allred

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/19/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110636 Angie Ingram v. Judge Henry Allred Appeal from Walker D i s t r i c t (SM-11-900456) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . A n g i e Ingram, t h e a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f i n a civil action ("the u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n " ) d i v i s i o n o f t h e Walker D i s t r i c t appeals i nthe small-claims Court ("the d i s t r i c t c o u r t " ) , from a judgment f i n d i n g h e r i n contempt and s e n t e n c i n g 2110636 her to 60 days in jail. We reverse and remand with instructions. Ingram's represents state. court. creditors During creditors office the is in last several 2011, the County, actions years, i n a number o f c o l l e c t i o n I n May appear Jefferson collection she has the who district had been o r d e r e d Ingram 20, 2011. T h a t c a u s e h e a r i n g r e l a t e d t o a c t i o n s she was she represented i n the judge ("the t r i a l j u d g e " ) a t a show-cause h e a r i n g on May but throughout actions district-court p r e s i d i n g i n those actions to in show- handling i n general r a t h e r t h a n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r . A t t h a t showcause h e a r i n g , the t r i a l judge stated, i n pertinent part: "THE COURT: Over t h e l a s t t w o - a n d - a - h a l f y e a r s t h e r e ' s a l o t of t i m e s t h a t y a ' l l e i t h e r haven't had a n y b o d y h e r e , o r you have l o c a l a t t o r n e y s , f o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , and t h e y d o n ' t know what c a s e s t h e y are h e r e on, t h e y d o n ' t know w h a t ' s g o i n g on w i t h t h e c a s e s . And t h e n what I do w e l l , what I s t a r t e d out d o i n g i s c o n t i n u i n g those because I f i g u r e d , w e l l , m i s t a k e s h a p p e n and somebody g o t m i x e d up somewhere. As i t c o n t i n u e d t o happen, I d i s m i s s e d t h o s e c a s e s . I f t h e r e was a good r e a s o n why you m i s s e d , I w o u l d c o n s i d e r r e i n s t a t i n g t h o s e cases. "Now what I'm s e e i n g i s , nobody shows up. I have p e o p l e t h a t t a k e o f f work, p e o p l e t h a t h i r e l a w y e r s , t h e y ' r e h e r e , and nobody i s h e r e on y o u r s i d e . I d i s m i s s them and t h e n I g e t a s l e w o f m o t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e , w h i c h i s f u r t h e r a w a s t e o f my t i m e . You 2 2110636 know, I'm r u l i n g on e v e r y t h i n g two o r t h r e e t i m e s b e c a u s e y a ' l l c a n ' t be b o t h e r e d t o come up h e r e , a n d I'm v e r y unhappy a b o u t t h a t , Ms. I n g r a m . " Ingram explained that she h a d a r r a n g e d for a local a t t o r n e y t o a p p e a r on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t but t h a t he h a d p r o v e d relying trial unreliable on h i m i n t h e f u t u r e . a n d t h a t s h e w o u l d n o t be Ingram a l s o a p o l o g i z e d t o t h e judge. The f o l l o w i n g c o l l o q u y t h e n o c c u r r e d : "THE COURT: W e l l , I'm n o t n e c e s s a r i l y "MS. INGRAM: A n d i t ' s n o t -¬ "THE COURT: didn't bring anything c a s t i n g s t o n e s a t anybody. And I you o v e r h e r e like that. I t o throw don't you i n j a i l o r think that's a p p r o p r i a t e . I j u s t want y o u a n d I t o be on t h e same page on t h i s . "MS. INGRAM: I u n d e r s t a n d . "THE COURT: I f t h i s c o n t i n u e s t o h a p p e n , h e r e ' s where I am a t . I want y o u t o know s o t h e r e ' s no misunderstanding. "Particularly, i n c a s e s where I have o t h e r a t t o r n e y s t h a t a r e h e r e a n d t h e r e ' s nobody h e r e f r o m y o u r o f f i c e , I'm g o i n g t o e n t e r t a i n m o t i o n s f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s on t h o s e c a s e s . I'm g o i n g t o s t a r t f i n i n g you i f I f e e l l i k e somebody h a s come h e r e . A l o t o f these people can i l l - a f f o r d t o miss a day o f work anyway. A n d i f t h e y t a k e o f f work a n d come up h e r e a n d t h e r e ' s nobody up h e r e t o p r o s e c u t e t h a t c a s e , t h e r e ' s g o i n g t o be some p u n i t i v e damages -- " 3 2110636 The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e May 20, 2011, show-cause does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l be i n contempt reinstate or ordered judge e i t h e r found Ingram t o her not to file a motion an a c t i o n i f t h e a c t i o n h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d her f a i l u r e t o appear a t a h e a r i n g o r docket c a l l . the r e c o r d b e f o r e us does n o t c o n t a i n a w r i t t e n o r d e r file on o r b e f o r e May to due t o Moreover, f i n d i n g I n g r a m i n c o n t e m p t b a s e d on a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s occurred hearing either t h a t had 20, 2 0 1 1 , o r o r d e r i n g h e r n o t t o a m o t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e an a c t i o n i f t h e a c t i o n h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d due t o h e r f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t a h e a r i n g o r d o c k e t call. S u b s e q u e n t t o t h e May 20, 2 0 1 1 , show-cause h e a r i n g , t h e trial j u d g e s e t t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n on h i s J a n u a r y trial docket. application in On December 23, 2011, Ingram 12, 2012, filed an f o r the entry of a d e f a u l t against the defendant the underlying a c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e t o answer o r otherwise defend, a motion f o r a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t t h e defendant, and supporting a defendant trial affidavit owed t h e p l a i n t i f f . judge's January hearing establishing on M a r c h the amount Ingram d i d n o t appear 12, 2012, t r i a l docket; at the a t a show-cause 2 1 , 2012, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t 4 the she h a d n o t 2110636 appeared at the January 12, 2012, t r i a l believed a c t i o n w o u l d be d i s p o s e d trial had the underlying docket because o f by t h e j u d g e ' s g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t she f i l e d on December 23, 2011. On J a n u a r y 23, 2012, t h e t r i a l judge entered a judgment d i s m i s s i n g the underlying action. That judgment s t a t e d : " N e i t h e r p a r t y a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t . dismissed the u n d e r l y i n g default, affidavit Case f o r lack of prosecution." On J a n u a r y 27, 2012, I n g r a m f i l e d a she a motion to r e i n s t a t e a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r motion for a had been f i l e d default before judgment, and supporting t h e J a n u a r y 12, 2012, d o c k e t . On F e b r u a r y 17, 2012, t h e t r i a l j u d g e e n t e r e d trial an o r d e r stating: " M o t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e f i l e d by [the p l a i n t i f f i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n ] i s h e r e b y s e t f o r h e a r i n g on M a r c h 5, 2012 a t 9:00 a.m. The h e a r i n g w i l l be h e l d on t h e i s s u e s o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t and a l s o t o g i v e p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l an o p p o r t u n i t y t o show c a u s e why she s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r r e p e a t e d f a i l u r e t o appear i n t h i s c o u r t . " I n g r a m n e i t h e r a p p e a r e d a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, h e a r i n g n o r gave t h e t r i a l j u d g e a d v a n c e n o t i c e t h a t she w o u l d n o t be at that hearing. A t t h e M a r c h 2 1 , 2012, show-cause appearing hearing, I n g r a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d h a d m a t t e r s i n f o u r a c t i o n s i n 5 2110636 the J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t Court and t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t scheduled f o r t h e morning appeared as Court o f M a r c h 5, 2 0 1 2 , a n d t h a t s h e h a d i n those a c t i o n s t h a t morning. She f u r t h e r testified follows: "Q. [By I n g r a m ' s a t t o r n e y : ] Okay. B u t y o u a r e not here t o t e l l t h e [ t r i a l ] judge t h a t you d i d n ' t a p p e a r i n h i s c o u r t [on M a r c h 5, 2012,] s p e c i f i c a l l y because you appeared i n t h o s e cases [ i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ] , a r e you? "A. No. "Q. I t j u s t h a p p e n s t o be a f a c t t h a t y o u h a d f o u r o t h e r cases i n a n o t h e r county t h a t you h a n d l e d t h a t day? "A. Y e s . "Q. When y o u saw n o t i c e o f t h e show c a u s e h e a r i n g on M a r c h 5 t h t h a t was e n t e r e d b y [ t h e t r i a l j u d g e ] , what was y o u r r e a c t i o n ? "A. I mean, I saw t h a t he s e t t h e m o t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e . I a l r e a d y b e l i e v e d t h a t i t w o u l d j u s t be d e n i e d , y o u know. I j u s t have b e e n a t a l o s s as t o f i g u r e o u t what i t i s t h a t I am n o t d o i n g i n y o u r c o u r t r o o m , Y o u r Honor. I d o n ' t have t h i s p r o b l e m anywhere i n t h e r e s t o f t h e s t a t e b u t h e r e . A n d I h a v e no i d e a how t o f i x i t . A n d I am s t i l l s i t t i n g h e r e l i s t e n i n g t o d a y , a n d I s t i l l d o n ' t know how t o f i x i t . I do e v e r y t h i n g w i t h i n my power t o manage my o f f i c e , my d o c k e t s , a n d I d o n ' t know what e l s e t o do. "THE COURT: Can I a s k what c o n f l i c t p r o v i s i o n s t h a t y o u t o o k , what s t e p s t h a t y o u t o o k t o n o t i f y me t h a t you h a d o t h e r c a s e s s e t ? 6 2110636 "MS. INGRAM: I d i d n ' t . I j u s t -- I j u s t s h u t down. I j u s t d i d n ' t know what e l s e t o do. I mean, I have b e e n h e r e . I have t r i e d t o do -- a n d I have b e e n r e s p e c t f u l t o y o u . The t i m e s t h a t I have b e e n h e r e , I have n e v e r h a d a c r o s s w o r d w i t h y o u . "THE COURT: We d o n ' t have any p r o b l e m s when you show up. We n e v e r h a v e . "MS. INGRAM: No. I j u s t d o n ' t know how i t i s , how I have g o t t e n on t h e wrong s i d e h e r e , a n d I d o n ' t know. I s t i l l d o n ' t know how t o f i x i t , o t h e r t h a n j u s t come e v e r y month. saw you felt and "Q. [By Ingram's a t t o r n e y : ] Okay. So when you t h a t t h a t h a d b e e n s e t t h a t d a y , I mean, what a r e i n d i c a t i n g t o me i t s o u n d s l i k e i s t h a t you an o v e r w h e l m i n g f e e l i n g o f s o r t o f h e l p l e s s n e s s hopelessness of that s i t u a t i o n ? "A. Y e s . "Q. A n d i n s t e a d o f s o r t o f f a c i n g t h a t s i t u a t i o n h e a d - o n , you k i n d o f t u r n e d away f r o m a s i t u a t i o n where you f e l t h e l p l e s s a n d h o p e l e s s ; i s t h a t r i g h t ? "A. Y e s . " On March attachment that 6, 2012, t h e t r i a l judge issued a writ stated: " I t a p p e a r i n g t o t h i s Court t h a t A n g i e Hubbard I n g r a m , a t t o r n e y f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f , was d u l y o r d e r e d to appear b e f o r e t h e Court f o r a Small Claims Docket on t h e 5 t h d a y o f M a r c h , 2012, a n d s a i d A t t o r n e y h a s f a i l e d a n d r e f u s e d t o a p p e a r f o r C o u r t on t h e 5 t h day o f M a r c h , 2012, a n d i t a p p e a r i n g t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e s a i d a t t o r n e y s t a n d s i n contempt o f t h i s C o u r t , you a r e t h e r e f o r e Commanded t o a r r e s t t h e s a i d A n g i e H u b b a r d Ingram, I n s t a n t e r , a n d b r i n g h e r b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t t o t e s t i f y i n t h i s c a s e a n d show 7 of 2110636 c a u s e t o t h i s C o u r t why s h e s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n Contempt o f C o u r t . "The s u b j e c t i s t o be b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t upon h e r a r r e s t a n d i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n t h e W a l k e r County J a i l . " I t i s t h e FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, t h a t t h e S h e r i f f s h a l l n o t i f y t h e C o u r t i m m e d i a t e l y upon apprehension and d e t e n t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t . "DONE a n d ORDERED, t h i s t h e 6 t h day o f March, 2012. "BOND AMOUNT: NONE" (Capitalization i n original.) Also on M a r c h 6, 2012, t h e t r i a l County Sheriff's Office County to arrest Ingram. send a deputy A t t h e March hearing, t h e Walker County deputy follows. He met a J e f f e r s o n County afternoon o f March Ingram's o f f i c e . judge had t h e Walker sheriff to Jefferson 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , show-cause sheriff deputy testified sheriff as on t h e 6, 2012, a n d t h e two d e p u t i e s went t o When t h e d e p u t i e s a r r i v e d a t Ingram's on t h e s e c o n d f l o o r o f a b u i l d i n g , office the r e c e p t i o n i s t t o l d the d e p u t i e s t h a t Ingram was i n t h e y o g u r t shop d o w n s t a i r s . When the d e p u t i e s went t o t h e y o g u r t shop, and t h e d e p u t i e s a s k e d an employee Ingram was. The yogurt-shop 8 Ingram was n o t t h e r e , o f t h e y o g u r t shop employee where telephoned an 2110636 u n i d e n t i f i e d person. yogurt-shop Upon c o n c l u d i n g h i s t e l e p h o n e b u t Ingram d i d n o t a p p e a r . The i f Ingram was e m p l o y e e made a t e l e p h o n e told the e m p l o y e e t o l d t h e d e p u t i e s t h a t I n g r a m w o u l d come down t o t h e y o g u r t shop i n a few m i n u t e s . employee call, the d e p u t i e s he deputies d e p u t i e s asked the coming call d i d not The down, and waited, yogurt-shop the yogurt-shop t o an u n i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n get an a n s w e r . The but yogurt-shop e m p l o y e e l a t e r made a n o t h e r c a l l t o an u n i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n and r e p o r t e d t o t h e d e p u t i e s t h a t I n g r a m w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o meet w i t h them b e c a u s e she was then went back upstairs m e e t i n g w i t h a c l i e n t . The to Ingram's r e c e p t i o n i s t t h a t the yogurt-shop I n g r a m was that i n her o f f i c e . I n g r a m had asked to there, search and left the The and office receptionist f o r a meeting. to v e r i f y allowed the b u i l d i n g but stopped i n the The t h a t she them parking identified were conversing himself as in the parking Ingram's h u s b a n d 9 deputies deputies was not so. The then do l o t t o have conversation before g e t t i n g i n t o t h e i r automobiles. deputies the deputies to d e p u t i e s d i d n o t f i n d I n g r a m i n h e r o f f i c e . The left told e m p l o y e e had t o l d them t h a t r e c e p t i o n i s t t o l d the Ingram's o f f i c e the office deputies lot, a approached a While the man who them and 2110636 a s k e d t h e d e p u t i e s i f t h e y were l o o k i n g f o r I n g r a m . When t h e y r e s p o n d e d i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e , t h e man e i t h e r s a i d t h a t knew t h e d e p u t i e s were c o m i n g o r t h a t were looking f o r her, that 1 Ingram she knew t h e d e p u t i e s she was n o t a t h e r o f f i c e , and t h a t t h e d e p u t i e s w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o c o n t a c t h e r . The W a l k e r C o u n t y d e p u t y t h e n c a l l e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e , who t o l d t h e d e p u t y to t e l l t h e man who h a d i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f as Ingram's h u s b a n d t h a t , i f I n g r a m w o u l d come w i t h t h e d e p u t y , she c o u l d g e t o u t of jail b u t , i f s h e d i d n o t come w i t h t h e d e p u t y , t h e t r i a l j u d g e was g o i n g t o be gone f o r a few d a y s a n d t h e t r i a l did n o t know when relayed t o t h e man husband what identified the At testified the the who the t r i a l himself deputies Ingram would g e t o u t o f j a i l . had i d e n t i f i e d judge had himself said. The judge The d e p u t y as man Ingram's who had as Ingram's h u s b a n d t h e n w a l k e d o f f , a n d left. March 21, 2012, t h a t she h a d l e f t show-cause her o f f i c e hearing, Ingram f o r a meeting before d e p u t i e s a r r i v e d a t h e r o f f i c e on M a r c h 6, 2012, a n d t h a t The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g how I n g r a m c o u l d have known b e f o r e t h e d e p u t i e s came t o h e r o f f i c e on M a r c h 6, 2012, t h a t a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t h a d b e e n i s s u e d on M a r c h 6, 2012, o r t h a t a W a l k e r C o u n t y d e p u t y s h e r i f f h a d b e e n s e n t t o h e r o f f i c e t o e x e c u t e t h e w r i t on M a r c h 6, 2012. 1 10 2110636 h e r s t a f f d i d n o t know she h a d l e f t t h e o f f i c e . She i n t r o d u c e d f o o t a g e f r o m a s e c u r i t y camera a t h e r o f f i c e c o r r o b o r a t i n g h e r testimony that she h a d l e f t her o f f i c e before a r r i v e d . T h e r e was a l s o e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g did not learn that the deputies a f t e r they had Ingram deputies t o prove that h a d come t o h e r o f f i c e Ingram until left. further t e s t i f i e d upon l e a r n i n g t h a t called the the t r i a l as f o l l o w s . On M a r c h the deputies judge's 6, 2012, h a d come t o h e r o f f i c e , she office; however, the t r i a l judge r e f u s e d t o t a l k t o h e r , a n d h i s s e c r e t a r y r e l a y e d a message t o her from t h e t r i a l the jail. Ingram (The t r i a l had c a l l e d 2012, and t h a t asked a Walker attorney") judge t h a t acknowledged his office County attorney to talk attorney the t r i a l called County a t t o r n e y for advice. ("the f i r s t The f i r s t on t h e r e c o r d Walker j u d g e on h e r b e h a l f . the t r i a l Ingram The 6, then County first judge and t h e r e a f t e r j u d g e t h a t she s h o u l d then c a l l e d a Jefferson J e f f e r s o n County a t t o r n e y " ) J e f f e r s o n County a t t o r n e y 11 that o f March t o h e r . ) Ingram ("the f i r s t r e l a y e d a message t o h e r f r o m t h e t r i a l turn herself i n at the j a i l . turn herself i n at on t h e a f t e r n o o n he h a d r e f u s e d to call Walker County judge she s h o u l d t o ask t o l d her that 2110636 he w o u l d c o n t a c t t h e t r i a l them t o appear before County a t t o r n e y The first called County trial the t r i a l judge. The h e a r d on M a r c h 21, t o a d m i t an attorney. At arrange f o r first Jefferson 2012. o u t o f town when 2012, and the t r i a l s i g n e d by affidavit the and j u d g e on M a r c h 7, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y was t h i s m a t t e r was refused the j u d g e t h e n e x t day the first March 21, 2012, hearing, judge Jefferson the trial judge s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "THE COURT: T h e r e i s some i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s i n t h a t [ a f f i d a v i t ] from [the f i r s t J e f f e r s o n County a t t o r n e y ] . I d i d n ' t t e l l him t h a t I w o u l d g e t t o i t n e x t week. My advice t o him was t h a t he was r e p r e s e n t i n g someone who was i n open v i o l a t i o n o f a C o u r t o r d e r , and I a s k e d him i f i t was h i s p r a c t i c e to advise his clients to continue to stay i n v i o l a t i o n o f a C o u r t o r d e r . And I t o l d him t h a t i f he w a n t e d t o h e l p h i s c l i e n t , he n e e d e d t o t e l l h e r t o t u r n h e r s e l f i n . ... " (Emphasis added.) I n g r a m t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s a t t h e M a r c h 21, cause 2012, show- hearing: "Q. [By Ingram's a t t o r n e y : ] B u t -- w e l l , o k a y . L e t me a s k you t h i s q u e s t i o n , A n g i e . D i d you s p e a k w i t h [ t h e f i r s t J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y ] a f t e r he spoke w i t h [the t r i a l j u d g e ] ? "A. Yes, he called me. "Q. Okay. And what d i d he o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n was? 12 tell you the context 2110636 that "A. T h a t [ t h e t r i a l j u d g e ] was s t i l l i n s i s t e n t I check m y s e l f i n t o the j a i l . "Q. Okay. "A. And t h a t [ t h e t r i a l j u d g e ] w o u l d d e a l me when he g o t b a c k f r o m h i s t r i p . " with (Emphasis added.) I n g r a m f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s a t t h e M a r c h 21, 2012, show-cause h e a r i n g . J e f f e r s o n County a t t o r n e y , On t h e a d v i c e of the f i r s t she d i d n o t t u r n h e r s e l f i n t o t h e j a i l on M a r c h 7, 2012, b e c a u s e she w o u l d have h a d t o r e m a i n i n j a i l u n t i l the t r i a l judge returned f r o m h i s t r i p sometime t h e f o l l o w i n g week. On M a r c h 8, 2012, t h e f i r s t attorney contacted another Walker County a t t o r n e y Walker County attorney") j u d g e on Ingram's said that behalf. the t r i a l The March informed County 8, 2012, Ingram District Sheriff's Office the that, Jefferson after Attorney's was not the second Walker County j u d g e h a d gone o u t o f town Office, going to trial attorney and t h a t he on M a r c h 14, 2012. County consulting County ("the s e c o n d and a s k e d h i m t o c o n t a c t w o u l d c a l l t h e t r i a l j u d g e when he r e t u r n e d On Jefferson sheriff's with the the office Jefferson Jefferson execute the County writ of a t t a c h m e n t . A l s o on M a r c h 8, 2012, a J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y d i s t r i c t j u d g e c a l l e d I n g r a m and t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d 13 an e- 2110636 m a i l the t r i a l judge had s e n t t o a l l the c i r c u i t and district j u d g e s i n t h e s t a t e and t h a t t h e e - m a i l s t a t e d t h a t Ingram a fugitive from was justice. On M a r c h 9, 2012, the t r i a l judge e n t e r e d the following order: " T h i s c a u s e h a v i n g b e e n s e t f o r H e a r i n g on t h e 5 t h day o f M a r c h , 2012, upon P l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y , A n g i e H. Ingram's M o t i o n t o R e i n s t a t e , f i l e d J a n u a r y 27, 2012; s a i d H e a r i n g t o be on t h e i s s u e s o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t and a l s o t o g i v e P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l an o p p o r t u n i t y t o show cause why she s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r r e p e a t e d f a i l u r e and r e f u s a l t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t and f o r t h e r e p e a t e d m o t i o n s f o r reinstatement; and s a i d a t t o r n e y , h a v i n g f a i l e d t o appear i n c o u r t ; [ 2 ] " I t i s t h e r e f o r e t h e O r d e r , Judgment and D e c r e e of t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y , A n g i e H. Ingram, i s f o u n d t o be i n Contempt o f C o u r t f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the C o u r t ' s Order. that Plaintiff's "It is further ordered a t t o r n e y , A n g i e H. I n g r a m , r e p o r t t o t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l i m m e d i a t e l y t o a w a i t H e a r i n g on s a i d contempt c h a r g e s . " (Emphasis At testified added.) the as March 21, follows. 2012, Sometime show-cause before hearing, March 14, Ingram 2012, she The F e b r u a r y 17, 2012, o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e h e a r i n g on M a r c h 5, 2012, made no mention of "repeated motions for reinstatement. 2 14 2110636 l e a r n e d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d t o l d someone t h a t she was f a c i n g 25 days in jail. On M a r c h 14, 2012, the second Walker C o u n t y a t t o r n e y c a l l e d and r e l a y e d t h e message t h a t t h e judge then still called wanted her t o t u r n h e r s e l f another Jefferson J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y " ) who go t o t h e t r i a l 15, 2012, i n at the j a i l . attorney ("the judge's Ingram t a l k e d to the t r i a l second judge's o f f i c e . The next and the day, attorney courtroom. second Jefferson County attorney j u d g e on M a r c h 15, 2012, the t r i a l judge, t h a t same day, e n t e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : " T h i s m a t t e r i s s e t f o r a show c a u s e h e a r i n g on Wednesday M a r c h 21, a t 9:00 A.M. i n C o u r t r o o m 'C' o f the Walker County C o u r t h o u s e . P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l , A n g i e Ingram, i s o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e why she s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r r e p e a t e d and c o n t i n u o u s d e f i a n c e o f t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r s t o wit: for She a d v i s e d her that they should she and t h e s e c o n d J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y went t o t h e t r i a l After trial j u d g e ' s c o u r t r o o m t h e n e x t day w i t h o u t m a k i n g any f u r t h e r c a l l s t o t h e t r i a l March County now "1. R e p e a t e d and c o n t i n u o u s f a i l u r e t o scheduled hearings before t h i s Court. appear "2. R e p e a t e d f i l i n g o f f r i v o l o u s ' m o t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e ' i n c a s e s w h i c h t h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y d i s m i s s e d f o r the f a i l u r e of P l a i n t i f f ' s counsel to 15 2110636 appear. This Court s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d counsel t h a t s u c h f i l i n g s w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d an a c t o f c o n t e m p t a t an e a r l i e r 'show c a u s e ' h e a r i n g h e l d on May 20, 2011. [ 3 ] [4] "3. F a i l u r e t o a p p e a r f o r a 'show c a u s e ' h e a r i n g on M a r c h 5, 2012 a t 9:00 A.M. b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . "4. P r o v i d i n g f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o an o f f i c e r o f t h e C o u r t (a W a l k e r C o u n t y d e p u t y ) o r c a u s i n g f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o be p r o v i d e d v i a c o u n s e l ' s s t a f f when t h a t o f f i c e r showed up t o e x e c u t e a v a l i d w r i t o f attachment for failure to appear at the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d M a r c h 5, 2012 h e a r i n g . "5. R e p e a t e d f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e C o u r t ' s v e r b a l o r d e r s t o a p p e a r a n d answer t o t h e s e c h a r g e s , c h o o s i n g i n s t e a d t o have v a r i o u s a t t o r n e y s c o n t a c t t h e C o u r t on h e r b e h a l f . M r s . Ingram, a p r a c t i c i n g a t t o r n e y i n Alabama, o p e n l y i g n o r e d t h e C o u r t ' s o r d e r s a n d became a f u g i t i v e from j u s t i c e after b e c o m i n g aware o f a v a l i d w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t i s s u e d by t h i s C o u r t on M a r c h 6, 2012. Her open d e f i a n c e c o n t i n u e d u n t i l M a r c h 15, 2012. " P l a i n t i f f s c o u n s e l w i l l be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to respond and p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t o answer each o f these a l l e g e d a c t s o f contempt. Each a c t o f contempt A s n o t e d s u p r a i n n o t e 2, t h e F e b r u a r y 17, 2012, o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, show-cause h e a r i n g made no m e n t i o n of repeated motions t o r e i n s t a t e . 3 As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e May 20, 2 0 1 1 , show-cause h e a r i n g c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e o r d e r e d Ingram n o t t o f i l e m o t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e a c t i o n s t h a t had b e e n d i s m i s s e d due t o h e r f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t a h e a r i n g o r d o c k e t c a l l . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no o t h e r o r d e r o r d e r i n g Ingram n o t t o f i l e m o t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e a c t i o n s t h a t had b e e n d i s m i s s e d due t o h e r f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t a h e a r i n g or docket call. 4 16 2110636 i s p u n i s h a b l e by a maximum o f f i v e Walker County J a i l . " (5) d a y s i n the Ingram, t h e s e c o n d J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y , and a t h i r d Jefferson show-cause Ingram the an At oral that to the alleged may appeared the at the commencement motion asking the March of 21, the trial have the trial judge's contemptuous contributed i n v o l v e d i n the contemptuous to or own conduct may have c o n d u c t . The 2012, hearing, judge h i m s e l f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7 0 A ( f ) , A l a . R. ground related judge attorney hearing. made disqualify on County to C i v . P., conduct was so that the been otherwise trial trial judge d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n and p r o c e e d e d t o r e c e i v e e v i d e n c e o r e t e n u s . A t the c o n c l u s i o n of the h e a r i n g , the t r i a l judge stated: "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . I want t o go o v e r t h e s e g r o u n d s . As t o t h e c h a r g e o f r e p e a t i n g [ s i c ] and continuous f a i l u r e t o appear f o r s c h e d u l e d h e a r i n g s before this C o u r t , I f i n d no c o n t e m p t on that c h a r g e . As t o t h e r e p e a t e d f i l i n g o f f r i v o l o u s motions to r e i n s t a t e i n cases i n which t h i s Court has previously dismissed f o r the failure of plaintiff's c o u n s e l t o appear, an act that I s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d Ms. Ingram a b o u t e a r l i e r , I f i n d h e r i n c o n t e m p t , and I s e n t e n c e h e r t o f i v e d a y s i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l . On t h e c h a r g e o f f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r f o r a show c a u s e h e a r i n g on M a r c h 5 t h , 2012 a t 9:00 a.m., i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t she f a i l e d t o a p p e a r , I f i n d h e r i n c o n t e m p t on t h a t , [ 5 ] 5 See s u p r a note 4. 17 2110636 and I s e n t e n c e h e r t o f i v e d a y s i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l . On t h e c h a r g e o f p r o v i d i n g f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o an o f f i c e r o f t h e c o u r t , or causing false i n f o r m a t i o n t o be p r o v i d e d v i a c o u n s e l s t a f f , a n d recognizing that in Alabama the rules of p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y make us r e s p o n s i b l e , as attorneys, f o r o u r s t a f f ' s a c t i o n s , I f i n d Ms. Ingram i n contempt, and I s e n t e n c e h e r t o f i v e days i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l . On t h e c h a r g e o f r e p e a t e d f a i l u r e to f o l l o w the Court's verbal orders to appear and answer t o t h e s e c h a r g e s , c h o o s i n g i n s t e a d t o have v a r i o u s a t t o r n e y s c o n t a c t t h e C o u r t on h e r b e h a l f , I f i n d Ms. I n g r a m g u i l t y o f c o n t e m p t on t h a t f o r a p e r i o d o f time from March 6 t h u n t i l March 15th, n i n e days, each day i s a c o n t i n u i n g a c t o f c o n t e m p t , a n d I s e n t e n c e y o u t o 45 d a y s i n t h e Walker County J a i l f o r t h a t p e r i o d o f n i n e days o f open d e f i a n c e . ... " The trial the oral judge d i d not render a w r i t t e n order announcement o f h i s judgment contempt a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n hearing. Ingram appealed Because Rule 58(a), oral memorializing finding Ingram i n o f t h e M a r c h 2 1 , 2012, show-cause to this court on A p r i l A l a . R. C i v . P., does n o t a l l o w 4, 2012. f o r the r e n d i t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t , we remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e district court f o r the r e n d i t i o n and e n t r y of a written judgment o f contempt. On September rendered 24, 2012, t h e t r i a l and e l e c t r o n i c a l l y entered judge electronically the f o l l o w i n g written judgment: " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e 18 t h e C o u r t on M a r c h 2 1 , 2110636 2012, on a 'show c a u s e ' h e a r i n g f o r P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l t o show why she s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g the C o u r t ' s p r i o r o r d e r s . T e s t i m o n y was g i v e n , o r e t e n u s , and e v i d e n c e was presented to the Court. A f t e r h e a r i n g the testimony, observing the credibility and demeanor o f the w i t n e s s e s and e x a m i n i n g t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e C o u r t f i n d s as f o l l o w s : "1. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t C o u n s e l has r e p e a t e d l y f i l e d f r i v o l o u s 'motions t o r e i n s t a t e ' i n cases f o r w h i c h she n e g l e c t e d t o a p p e a r w i t h o u t r e a s o n a b l e excuse or e x p l a n a t i o n . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t s a i d filings violate the Court's earlier specific instruction f o r Counsel to refrain from such action. The C o u r t f i n d s c o u n s e l i n Contempt and s e n t e n c e s h e r t o f i v e d a y s (5) i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y Jail. [ 6 ] [ 7 ] "2. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t c o u n s e l w i l l f u l l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y f a i l e d t o a p p e a r f o r a 'show c a u s e ' h e a r i n g s e t on M a r c h 5, 2012 a t 9:00 a.m. The C o u r t f i n d s c o u n s e l i n c o n t e m p t and s e n t e n c e s h e r t o f i v e (5) d a y s i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y j a i l . "3. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t c o u n s e l w i l l f u l l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y p r o v i d e d f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n or caused f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o be p r o v i d e d v i a h e r s t a f f t o an o f f i c e r o f t h e C o u r t (a W a l k e r C o u n t y D e p u t y ) . The C o u r t f i n d s c o u n s e l i n c o n t e m p t and s e n t e n c e s h e r t o f i v e (5) d a y s i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l . The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e M a r c h 21, 2012, show-cause h e a r i n g c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Ingram h a d f i l e d any m o t i o n s t o r e i n s t a t e b e t w e e n t h e May 20, 2011, show-cause h e a r i n g and t h e M a r c h 21, 2012, show-cause h e a r i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e m o t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e she f i l e d i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n on J a n u a r y 27, 2012. 6 7 See supra note 4. 19 2110636 "4. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o respond to a l a w f u l w r i t of attachment r e q u i r i n g her to t u r n h e r s e l f i n to the Walker County Jail. Counsel d e f i e d the Court's order to t u r n h e r s e l f i n and c o n t i n u e d t o d e f y t h e C o u r t ' s o r d e r f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t e x t e n d e d f r o m M a r c h 6, 2012 u n t i l M a r c h 15, 2012. The C o u r t f i n d s e a c h day t h a t c o u n s e l d e f i e d t h e C o u r t ' s o r d e r t o be a s e p a r a t e a c t o f c o n t e m p t f o r a t o t a l o f n i n e (9) s e p a r a t e a c t s o f contempt. For each a c t of contempt, the Court sentences counsel to f i v e (5) d a y s i n t h e W a l k e r C o u n t y J a i l f o r a t o t a l o f f o r t y - f i v e (45) d a y s . " I n g r a m ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l became e f f e c t i v e 24, on 2012, the the judgment. See day Rule the trial judge 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. entered App. P. ("A September written notice of a p p e a l f i l e d a f t e r t h e announcement o f a d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r b u t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r s h a l l be t r e a t e d as f i l e d a f t e r t h e e n t r y and on t h e day thereof."). As a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , we must d e t e r m i n e jurisdiction Ala. Code over t h i s 1975, novo." appeals directly court provides Section from to shall have a p p e a l . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 12-12-71, that, "[e]xcept S e c t i o n 12-12-72 ... , a l l a p p e a l s district w h e t h e r we be to the 12-12-72(1), as provided in from f i n a l judgments of the circuit Ala. Code court 1975, for t r i a l provides de that f i n a l judgments of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t " s h a l l be the i f : (1) An o f f a c t s i s a v a i l a b l e and the appropriate adequate r e c o r d or s t i p u l a t i o n 20 appellate court 2110636 right to a thereto." jury Thus, trial this i s waived court has by a l l parties jurisdiction entitled over Ingram's a p p e a l i f t h e r e i s an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d and I n g r a m e i t h e r has no right to a jury t r i a l trial, she has o r , i f she i s has waived that right. The a right record to a jury on c o n t a i n s a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e May 20, 2011, show-cause the r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of the c l e r k ' s record, o f t h e M a r c h 2 1 , 2012, show-cause hearing, the appeal hearing, transcript the e x h i b i t s that were i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e M a r c h 21, 2012, show-cause h e a r i n g , and the 21, e x h i b i t t h a t was 2012, show-cause record o f f e r e d but r e j e c t e d a t the March hearing. i s adequate Therefore, we for appellate review determine whether conclude that of Ingram the the contempt judgment. We jury must now trial i s entitled and, i f s o , w h e t h e r she has w a i v e d i t . The guilty f o u n d Ingram civil c o n t e m p t . C h a r l e s M f g . Co. v. U n i t e d F u r n i t u r e W o r k e r s , ( A l a . 1978) ("Civil contempt s e e k t o compel o r c o e r c e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h o r d e r s in rather trial judge 361 So. 2d 1033, 1035 of c r i m i n a l contempt to a than sanctions of the court t h e f u t u r e , w h i l e a c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s one i n w h i c h t h e purpose of the proceeding is 21 to impose punishment for 2110636 disobedience of orders of the court."). The maximum s e n t e n c e f o r c r i m i n a l contempt i n Alabama i s 5 days i n j a i l fine. may a n d a $100 See § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 ( 5 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("The c i r c u i t punish dollars contempts by fines not exceeding one court hundred ($100) a n d b y i m p r i s o n m e n t n o t e x c e e d i n g f i v e d a y s . " ) ; Ex p a r t e I v e y , 698 So. 2d 187, 188 ( A l a . 1997) ("The maximum s e n t e n c e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c a n impose f o r c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s 5 days i n j a i l 1975 a n d a $100 f i n e . " ) ; a n d § 12-12-6, A l a . Code ("In a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l have a n d p o s s e s s power t o p u n i s h f o r c o n t e m p t s as heretorfore or hereafter granted to the c i r c u i t in Section this 12-11-30 o r o t h e r w i s e , state".). explained why In Ivey, criminal c o u r t by law, a n d b y t h e common l a w o f 698 So. 2d a t 188, t h e supreme contempt " o f f e n s e " and a " v i o l a t i o n " i n Alabama court i s merely rather than a "crime": "[U]nder t h e Alabama Criminal Code, [criminal] c o n t e m p t i s o n l y an ' o f f e n s e , ' § 1 3 A - 1 - 2 ( 1 ) , [ A l a . Code 1975,] n o t a ' c r i m e , ' § 1 3 A - 1 - 2 ( 5 ) [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . The maximum s e n t e n c e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c a n impose f o r c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s 5 d a y s i n j a i l a n d a $100 f i n e . A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 ( 5 ) . An o f f e n s e t h a t may be p u n i s h e d o n l y f o r 30 o r f e w e r d a y s i n j a i l i s a ' v i o l a t i o n , ' § 13A-1-2(2) . O n l y misdemeanors and f e l o n i e s (not v i o l a t i o n s ) a r e crimes. § 13A-1-2(5). T h e r e f o r e , under our s t a t u t e s , c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s a v i o l a t i o n , a n d i s m e r e l y an offense, not a crime." 22 an 2110636 The supreme c o u r t not have a r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l A l a b a m a . See 88, 90-91 has implied that Ex p a r t e Evett, (1956). In E v e t t , 90-91, t h e supreme c o u r t 264 264 an a l l e g e d c o n t e m n o r does i n a contempt p r o c e e d i n g i n Ala. 675, 678-79, 89 A l a . a t 678-79, 89 So. 2d 2d at So. stated: " A r t i c l e I, § 6 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n guarantees a jury t r i a l i n a l l prosecutions by i n d i c t m e n t , but t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t i n v e s t t h e Supreme C o u r t w i t h o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s . The s t a t u t e s do n o t i n v e s t t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s w i t h o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s , nor do Probate C o u r t s or C o u r t s of County Commissioners have any c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n w h a t s o e v e r , y e t a l l h a v e power t o p u n i s h f o r c o n t e m p t . I t w o u l d be anomalous i n d e e d t o h o l d t h a t a c r i m i n a l contempt c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t e i t h e r o f t h o s e c o u r t s s h o u l d be t r i e d u n d e r t h e c r i m i n a l c o d e ; and e v e n s o , t o h o l d t h a t t h e a c c u s e d was e n t i t l e d t o a t r i a l by j u r y . And i t w o u l d be e q u a l l y anomalous t o h o l d t h a t t h e law g i v e s a c o n t e m n o r o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t a r i g h t o f t r i a l by j u r y and a t t h e same t i m e , deny i t t o alleged contemnors of the A p p e l l a t e or Probate Courts. Clearly, contempt proceedings are not criminal cases within the meaning of the C o n s t i t u t i o n or s t a t u t e s of Alabama." Subsequent to E v e t t , the U n i t e d in B l o o m v. trial by Illinois, jury 391 applies to U.S. 194 "serious" States Supreme C o u r t h e l d (1968), t h a t the criminal contempts c o u l d r e s u l t i n s e v e r e punishment; however, i n the determining criminal whether the Double contempts, the Alabama 23 Jeopardy right Clause Supreme C o u r t that context applies held in of of to Ivey 2110636 that a criminal "serious" contempt criminal i n Alabama contempt the U n i t e d i s not States the sort Supreme of Court was r e f e r r i n g t o i n Bloom . 698 So. 2d a t 188-89. A c c o r d i n g l y , we conclude that I n g r a m does n o t have a right to t r i a l by jury. M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f she does have a r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , she has w a i v e d i t . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 12-12-71 p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y a p p e a l i n g from a judgment o f a d i s t r i c t not be e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y t r i a l does trial have a i n her notice right to a " I n g r a m d i d n o t demand of appeal. jury "shall i n c i r c u i t court unless i t i s demanded i n t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a jury court trial, o m i t t i n g a demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l Consequently, she has i f she w a i v e d i t by from her n o t i c e of appeal. A c c o r d i n g l y , because the r e c o r d i s adequate f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w and I n g r a m e i t h e r does n o t have a r i g h t t o a j u r y or, i f she does have a r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l , trial she has w a i v e d i t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t we have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Ingram's a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o §§ 12-12-71 and -72. Ingram f i r s t argues t h a t t h e t r i a l judge e r r e d i n d e n y i n g her motion f o r the t r i a l to Rule 70A(f) judge t o d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f pursuant because, she says, 24 the trial judge's own 2110636 c o n d u c t was so r e l a t e d that the t r i a l to the alleged contemptuous conduct j u d g e may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o o r may have been o t h e r w i s e i n v o l v e d i n t h e contemptuous conduct. In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , R u l e 7 0 A ( f ) p r o v i d e s t h a t " i f t h e j u d g e ' s own c o n d u c t i s so r e l a t e d t o the a l l e g e d contumacious conduct t h a t the judge may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o o r may have been o t h e r w i s e i n v o l v e d i n it, then ... t h e c o n t e m p t another judge There proceeding shall be referred to " (Emphasis added.) is a disputed issue p r o c e e d i n g t h a t makes t h e t r i a l of fact i n this contempt j u d g e a p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s . On M a r c h 6, 2012, t h e t r i a l j u d g e f o u n d I n g r a m g u i l t y o f o n l y one act of criminal contempt, i . e . , h e r d i s o b e y i n g h i s o r d e r t o a p p e a r a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, show-cause finding of criminal because the t r i a l contempt rather hearing. than T h a t was a civil j u d g e was a t t e m p t i n g t o p u n i s h contempt Ingram f o r d i s o b e y i n g h i s o r d e r t o a p p e a r a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, h e a r i n g r a t h e r t h a n t o c o e r c e o r compel h e r t o a p p e a r a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, h e a r i n g o b v i o u s l y , when t h e t r i a l judge found her i n c o n t e m p t on M a r c h 6, 2012, f o r f a i l i n g t o a p p e a r a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, h e a r i n g , Ingram could not t r a v e l back i n t i m e and a p p e a r a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, h e a r i n g i n o r d e r t o p u r g e h e r s e l f 25 2110636 of the contempt. March 6, 2012, found Ingram See and M a r c h There ordered remain hearing, for 21, i n contempt sentence the t r i a l days i n j a i l C h a r l e s Mfg. judge and a $100 2012, there he the date the t r i a l c o u l d have i m p o s e d on the judge maximum Ingram f i n e . See §§ 12-12-6 and to report until s u p r a . Thus, b e t w e e n for additional acts, i s evidence tending Ingram Co., was 12-11-30(5). to prove t h a t the t r i a l to j a i l March 6, from returned on his trip 5 2012, judge and and to held w h i c h w o u l d have r e s u l t e d i n Ingram's b e i n g i n a jail more t h a n t h e 5-day maximum s e n t e n c e f o r a s i n g l e a c t o f criminal contempt. sheriff testified man had who 8 For that example, the the t r i a l i d e n t i f i e d himself Walker County deputy judge t o l d him t o t e l l as Ingram's h u s b a n d that the the t r i a l j u d g e was g o i n g o u t o f town and t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d not know when Ingram would get out of j a i l i f she d i d not r e t u r n t o W a l k e r C o u n t y w i t h t h e d e p u t y . Ingram t e s t i f i e d that B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c o n t e m p t j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e must be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Ingram's m o t i o n a s k i n g t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7 0 A ( f ) , we do n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r , b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e f o u n d Ingram i n c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t r a t h e r t h a n c i v i l c o n t e m p t on M a r c h 6, 2012, h i s f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f y a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of confinement i p s o f a c t o rendered h i s o r d e r i n g Ingram t o r e p o r t t o j a i l e r r o n e o u s . 8 26 2110636 the f i r s t that J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a t t o r n e y t o l d h e r on M a r c h 7, 2012, the t r i a l judge had t o l d the f i r s t a t t o r n e y t h a t Ingram had t o r e p o r t t o j a i l Jefferson County and t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e w o u l d d e a l w i t h h e r when he r e t u r n e d f r o m h i s t r i p . trial j u d g e ' s w r i t t e n M a r c h 9, 2012, o r d e r d i r e c t e d I n g r a m t o " r e p o r t t o t h e Walker County J a i l on The said contempt judge had e i t h e r charges" immediately despite already left t o await the fact that Hearing the trial town o r was i n t h e p r o c e s s of d o i n g s o . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a t t h e M a r c h 2 1 , 2012, show-cause hearing the t r i a l judge denied telling the f i r s t Jefferson C o u n t y a t t o r n e y on M a r c h 7, 2012, t h a t t h e t r i a l judge would d e a l w i t h I n g r a m when he r e t u r n e d Thus, is a factual witness issue that from h i s t r i p . makes t h e t r i a l i n t h i s contempt p r o c e e d i n g . that the t r i a l judge a there potential A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e judge e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Ingram's m o t i o n asking the t r i a l judge t o d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f pursuant t o Rule 7 0 A ( f ) . See Ex p a r t e c a r e f u l review Segrest, 718 So. 2d 1, 7 of the materials before ( A l a . 1998) ("[O]ur us i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e was i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s t h a t l e d t o the d i s c o r d below and t h a t regarding h i s out-of-court he w i l l probably communications w i t h 27 be a witness [the attorney 2110636 the t r i a l judge had found i n contempt]. Thus, r e f e r r a l under R u l e 7 0 A ( f ) i s p r o p e r . " ) . T h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e t h e c o n t e m p t judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l instructions f o r the t r i a l j u d g e a n d remand t h e c a u s e w i t h judge to transfer t h e contempt p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t Ingram t o a n o t h e r judge i n accordance w i t h R u l e 7 0 A ( f ) . B e c a u s e we have d i s p o s e d o f t h e a p p e a l b a s e d on Ingram's f i r s t a r g u m e n t , we do n o t r e a c h h e r o t h e r a r g u m e n t s . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 28 Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.