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.
