Summary 2010 WY 18

Summary of Decision issued February 23, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: BW v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 18

Docket Number: S-08-0216

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge.

Representing Appellant BW (Father): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Father challenged his conviction for indirect criminal contempt on several grounds. The dispositive issue was whether the juvenile court followed proper procedural requirements in finding Father in indirect criminal contempt.

A court imposing criminal contempt must comply with the due process protections found in W.R.Cr.P. 42. A proceeding in indirect criminal contempt must be instituted and conducted as a separate and independent criminal action apart from the original cause in which the contempt arose. In Swain and UMWA, Local 1972 the Court held that failure to adhere to the separate and independent action rule constituted a fatal jurisdictional defect which rendered any judgment of contempt null and void. The Information against Father was filed in the underlying juvenile case, as was his Judgment and Sentence which violated the Court’s precedent.
Next the Court considered whether due process protections attendant to indirect criminal contempt proceedings apply to contempt actions in juvenile court under the Child Protection Act. The juvenile court statutes and rules are silent as to the process to be followed in pursuing an indirect criminal contempt action. The Court found that the general criminal contempt law regarding procedure to be followed applies to contempt proceedings arising under the Child Protection Act.

Conclusion: Within the context of the Child Protection Act, an alleged contemnor must be granted all due process rights mandated by law. Because the contempt proceeding against Father was not conducted as an independent criminal action apart from the underlying juvenile case, with its own caption and docket number, the juvenile court never acquired jurisdiction to proceed. Having no jurisdiction, it’s Judgment and Sentence of contempt is null and void and vacated.

Vacated.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yefnqfn .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]