 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cumins v. State6/28/1990
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PARKS, Presiding Judge.
Joe Carl Cumins, appellant, was charged with the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Personal Injury Accident (47 O.S. 1981 § 10-102 [47-10-102]) in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-89-2060. On May 23, 1989, the date set for arraignment, appellant appeared pro se before the district court and refused to answer certain questions posed by the judge. Thereupon, appellant was cited for direct contempt of court (21 O.S. 1981 § 565 [21-565]) and sentenced to six (6) months incarceration in the county jail. On June 5, 1989, the trial court suspended the balance of appellant's sentence. From said Judgment and Sentence, appellant has perfected this appeal.
As his first assignment of error, appellant contends that his actions in court on the day in question were not contemptuous. The record reveals that when he appeared before the court pro se, appellant was asked whether he had retained counsel. Appellant responded in the negative, claimed that he could not afford to retain private counsel, and asserted his belief that the judge was being unfair in "insisting" that he obtain the same. The following colloquy then transpired:
Q: Where do you reside?
A: I reside at 6533 North Quincy in Turley, America.
Q: Do you own that residence?
A: No, sir, I do not. I rent.
Q: All right. Do you own a vehicle?
A: Well, that's really irrelevant, Your Honor, because —
Q: No, it's not.
A: I believe you're prejudiced against me —
Q: Mr. Cumins, are you going to answer my question?
A: I want to make a statement for the record.
Q: No. Are you going to answer my question?
A: I believe you're prejudiced against me, sir.
Thereupon, the judge held appellant in direct contempt of court for failing to answer the questions. (Tr. 2-3).
Title 21 O.S. 1981 § 565 [21-565], provides inter alia that " irect contempts shall consist of disorderly or insolent behavior committed during the session of the court and in its immediate view, and presence, and of the unlawful and willful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness, and the refusal to answer any legal or proper question; . . ." Appellant first asserts that the second and third clauses set forth above must be read together and that the third clause applies only to a sworn witness who refuses to answer questions. Because he was not sworn as a witness, appellant claims that his utterances fell outside of the intended scope of the statute. We disagree. The two phrases at issue are separated by a comma and the word "and," and neither phrase contains a reference to the other. Therefore, we find that the two phrases are mutually exclusive and make punishable two completely distinguishable types of conduct.
Appellant next maintains that the proper remedy for his actions would have been for the trial court to refuse to appoint a public defender. Because such action, absent a knowing and voluntary waiver, would have denied appellant the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. II, § 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution, we reject this proposition.
We also reject appellate counsel's argument that appellant should not have been held in contempt because he may not have understood why the questions were being asked. In his brief, counsel concedes that the trial court was pursuing a proper function in questioning appellant regarding his status as an indigent. A determination o
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|