State v. Dennis

379 So.3d 834

55,462 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24)

STATE of Louisiana Appellee

v.Quanittia DENNIS (In re: Michelle A, Charles Contempt Proceedings), Appellant

No. 55,462-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered January 10, 2024.

Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana, Trial Court No. 21CR31639, Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge

DICK "DAVE" KNADLER, Counsel for Appellant Michelle A. Charles

CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS, District Attorney, EDWIN L. BLEWER, III, LISA D. LOBRANO, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

₄Attorney Michelle A. Charles was found to be in constructive contempt of court for her failure to appear at a criminal trial. Charles was sentenced to serve 22 hours in the DeSoto Parish jail. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On October 25, 2022, Michelle Charles was scheduled to appear in court for the misdemeanor trial of her then-client, Quanittia Dennis. The trial was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. Dennis and the 21 witnesses subpoenaed by Charles were present; however, neither Charles nor her co-counsel were present, and neither had called the trial court, opposing counsel, or Dennis to apprise them of their absence or tardiness. When the trial court discovered Charles and her co-counsel were not present, the following colloquy occurred:

THE COURT: Ms. Dennis, where are your counsel?

[DENNIS]: I don’t know.

THE COURT Have you spoken with them?

[DENNIS]: Well, I spoke with her … day before yesterday. She asked me to fire her.

THE COURT: She asked – let me get you to raise your right hand for me, please.

[Dennis was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk of Court]

₅THE COURT: Okay. *** So, you said that she asked you to fire her. Who is she?

[DENNIS]: Michelle Charles. I know, on two occasions, she asked you to withdraw her off the case. I’m asking for a strategy. I still don’t know what the strategy is. I filed motions to the Attorney General to ask for a [quash] - motion to [quash] because I don’t ₂have effective counsel. In June, you asked both of my attorneys are they gonna be effective to do my trial. They both told you yes. You asked them, but I don’t have an attorney, and I don’t know what’s gonna happen.

THE COURT: Okay. So, when you talked to her *** on Sunday?

[DENNIS]: Yes, I called her and I text[ed] her. Then I called her again, and I text[ed] her again.

THE COURT: And that’s all Ms. Charles, right?

[DENNIS]: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And so, she asked you to fire her. Did you, in fact, fire her?

[DENNIS]: No, I didn’t. I told her to ask you.

THE COURT: Okay. And then have you spoken to Ms. Page?

[DENNIS]: Ms. Page told you that she wasn’t coming. This – they [were] serious. She was serious. So.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, Ms. Page – we set today’s court date –

[DENNIS]: Well –

THE COURT: Because this was a date when Ms. Page was, in fact, available. So –

[DENNIS]: Well, you can see they [are] not here.

THE COURT: Okay. So, have you spoken – when’s the last time you spoke with Ms. Page? When you were last here –

[DENNIS]: Uh-huh.

₃THE COURT: And she appeared by Zoom?

[DENNIS]: Uh-huh.

***

THE COURT: Okay. And there has – they have filed motions to withdraw, which I had denied. *** None of those motions suggested that you fired them, and so I just wanna make sure *** you did not fire them.

[DENNIS]: No. I didn’t fire them. *** But they – I mean, they – it’s like – I ain’t never seen nothing like this, but, no, they [are] not here. They ain’t here.

***

THE COURT: But I do note that Ms. Charles sent an email to my office yesterday, that would be October 24, 2022 *** In which she mentioned that she had received so much discovery that she had not reviewed it yet, I believe. Let’s see. She says, "This case has two jump drives of discovery with numerous witnesses," which would – have you been made aware that there are two jump drives of discovery?

***

[DENNIS]: I’m not - I didn’t see the two jump drives of discovery.

***

THE COURT: I’m going to place the email in the record for purposes of today’s hearing. Is there - I mean, obviously, we can’t proceed.

***

At that point, the State orally requested a "writ of attachment" be issued for Charles and expressed its intent to file a rule for constructive contempt of court for Charles’s ₄failure "to follow the Court’s orders and failing to appear."¹ The trial court issued a writ of attachment for Charles, ordering the DeSoto Parish sheriff to "safely keep and detain" Charles in the parish jail, without bond, and "produce her in open court."

Later that day, the State filed a "Rule for Contempt," alleging Charles should be held in constructive contempt of court, pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 23(2), for her failure to follow the trial court’s orders and to appear for her client’s trial. The trial court issued an order setting the rule to show cause for November 16, 2022.

Subsequently, Charles appeared at the DeSoto Parish Courthouse on October 25, 2022, and she was detained and later brought into court for a special hearing. Charles was served with notice of the constructive contempt charge, and the colloquy was as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Charles, anything?

MS. CHARLES: Judge, I just – I do wanna apologize to the Court for being late. I was – left home at four o’clock this morning, in hopes to get here at 9:00, because it is a four hour and twenty-seven-minute drive. I stopped in Alexandria to use the bathroom, which probably delayed me about thirty – thirty to forty-five minutes getting here. There was rain on Atchafalaya Ba- sin Bridge. That was – it was a really bad rain ₅storm, in pitch black weather coming here. So, I do apologize to the Court for being late. It was never my intention to circumvent the Court’s order to be present, Judge.

THE COURT: Well – and, of course, Ms. Charles, you did not contact my office to say that you were running late. Had you done that, I could have recessed court, and we could’ve reconvened when you would have arrived. However, you did not do that. No one in my office was contacted. You knew, well before nine o’clock, that you were not going to be here on time, and you chose not to notify anyone of that. In light of that, not only did your twenty-one witnesses show up, in addition, to others, but the State had witnesses here, as well. So, we will address all of that when we come back for the contempt hearing.

***

Charles was formally served with notice of the November 16, 2022, hearing date.

On November 9, 2022, Charles filed a "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence Pursuant to [La. C. Cr. P. art.] 881.5," motion to quash the rule for contempt, and a motion for new trial. The following day, and prior to the trial court’s ruling on her motions, Charles filed an application for supervisory review and request for a stay, requesting this Court to exercise its supervisory authority to vacate her "sentence" and to stay the proceedings for constructive contempt of court. By order dated November 15, 2022, this ₆Court denied Charles’ application, finding she failed "to show there had been a hearing, a finding of guilt, or the imposition of any sentence regarding the trial court’s order that a writ of attachment." Thereafter, the trial court denied Charles’ motions, finding "there has been no trial."

A rule for contempt was held on November 16, 2022. During the hearing, Charles, through counsel, objected to the introduction of her email to the trial judge’s secretary, arguing it was hearsay and the record is devoid of proof she sent the email. The trial court overruled the objection, stating, "The email is certainly a statement against interest in that it was sent by Ms. Charles to Candice Williams in my office, who is my secretary. And the Court, in fact, is the one who introduced it into the record on October the 25th."

Charles also objected to the trial court’s questioning of Dennis on the morning of October 25^th, arguing Dennis was questioned "without the presence of counsel," she "was not apprised of her rights per Miranda," and "she was sworn in and then answers were then elicited to testify against her own counsel[.]" Charles argued Dennis "made answers that were against her interest, and testified to things that were confidential communications between her and Ms. Charles." The State opposed the argument, noting "The statement that defense counsel is talking about are in no way against Ms. Dennis’ interest in any way." The State also argued, ₇"Ms. Dennis is the one that controls attorney-client privilege, not Ms. Charles." The trial court overruled Charles’s objection, stating:

It’s due to [Charles’s] refusal to show up on time or to let the Court know that she was not going to be able to make it on time. That’s the entire reason that we’re here today. Ms. Dennis – there was not a need for her to be Mirandized. She was not testifying against her own interest. You don’t want the statements in because they’re against your client’s interest *** however, that is not a valid basis for the objection you’re making. *** Ms. Dennis in fact controls the attorney-client privilege. So, to the extent that Ms. Dennis desires to waive that privilege as to some measure of communications that she had with Ms. Charles, she’s capable of doing that. And this is in fact what she chose to do that day.

***

Further, Charles argued she was not given notice a writ of attachment would be issued. Thereafter the following colloquy occurred:

THE COURT: This is in line with a bench warrant. It’s not the Court’s obligation to contact a person who has notice to appear. They were given notice. That’s why I don’t need to contact them. *** Are criminal defendants given notice that a bench warrant has issued, which will cause them to be taken to jail?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, that’s a bench warrant. That’s not a writ of attachment.

THE COURT: It’s the same.

***

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: *** This was different. This was a...