Bloom v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 1986 No. D004652Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court cannot reinstitute contempt proceedings against an attorney after a prior contempt order based on the same conduct has been annulled for jurisdictional defects, as such a retrial violates the finality requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1222 and due process principles.

Issues

Whether a trial court may reinstitute contempt proceedings after a prior contempt order was annulled for jurisdictional defects.
Whether a retrial of a direct contempt charge before the same judge who previously adjudicated the conduct violates due process.

Disposition. writ issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Due process can never exist when the trier of fact has already decided the issue in dispute.”

“Accordingly, we conclude reinstituting Bloom’s contempt proceeding is contrary to the finality requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1222.”

“Moreover, to hold such a proceeding before the same judge who earlier decided the issue is fundamentally unfair to the person charged.”

Opinion

WIENER, Acting P. J.

Attorney Allen Bloom seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent his contempt trial. For the reasons set forth below we issue the writ.

On January 22, 1986, Bloom was conducting jury voir dire during a hearing under Penal Code section 1368 regarding his client’s competence to stand trial. Bloom asked a prospective juror the type of criminal case on which the juror had previously sat. The trial court ruled the question was improper and directed Bloom to “move to a different area” of inquiry. Bloom failed to comply with the court’s order. After making several requests of Bloom to “move to a different area,” the court excused the jury and cited Bloom for contempt. At his sentencing Bloom made a statement explaining his reasons for wishing to make the voir dire inquiries in question. The court rejected those reasons and ordered Bloom to pay a $350 fine.

Bloom successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from this court. In an unpublished opinion

(In re Allen R. Bloom

on Habeas Corpus, Apr. 10, 1986, D004293) we annulled the contempt order.

After issuing our opinion, the trial court reinstituted the contempt charge against Bloom by a written order to show cause setting the matter for hearing accompanied by the court’s declaration describing the contempt with specificity. We granted Bloom’s request for a temporary stay.

Our earlier decision in this case was based on fundamental principles governing direct contempts. We recognized that while a court has both the statutory power (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subds. (a)(1) and (a)(3)) and the inherent power

(Raskin

Superior Court

(1934) 138 Cal.App. 668,

[412]

669-670 [33 P.2d 35]) to adjudge and punish for contempt, the order citing Bloom for contempt was “jurisdictionally defective because it . . . [did] not contain the information required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1211, namely a recitation that the facts underlying the citation occurred in the immediate view and presence of the court.”

Bloom v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief