In Re Rosen

Opinion

LILLIE, J.

By application for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner Gerry Rosen, an attorney at law, seeks a review and an annulment of an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court adjudging him in contempt and sentencing him to jail for five days or, in the alternative, to pay a fine of $500. Such adjudication was made in the course of a felony trial wherein petitioner was defense counsel for Will David Young who, together with one Wilson (represented by separate counsel), was charged with forcible rape. Sentence on the contempt was stayed until the termination of the trial. Writ of review was issued returnable to this court and the temporary stay granted upon filing of the petition was continued until further order.

The adjudication of contempt is by way of a minute order

1

dated September 27, 1972; it reflects the court’s oral findings and imposition of punishment. It is apparent that a minute order complies with the requirement of section 1211, Code of Civil Procedure, that a written order must be made adjudging that the party proceeded against is guilty of a contempt and that he be punished accordingly. (See

Morales

v.

Superior Court,

239 Cal.App.2d 947, 948 [49 Cal.Rptr. 173], and

Blake

v.

Municipal Court,

144 Cal.App.2d 131, 133 [300 P.2d 755].)

Petitioner contends that the recitals in the order are conclusionary in nature, and an order adjudicating contempt is valid only if it contains a

[73]

recital of facts showing acts which constitute the contempt. Respondent court argues that the transcript of the record of the contempt proceedings fully supports the conclusion that the remark was “facetious and uncalled for.”

2