This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a mortgage loan broker, was subject to a stipulated permanent injunction prohibiting him from conducting business as a loan broker except as an employee of a registered loan broker or mortgage loan company. Despite this, the Defendant allegedly continued to act as a loan broker through a new entity, SunTrust Mortgage, which was not properly registered. Evidence presented included testimony that the Defendant managed SunTrust's operations and handled loan applications, violating the terms of the injunction (paras 2-3, 10-13).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The Defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the stipulated permanent injunction and sentenced to 179 days in jail (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the trial court erred by failing to provide him with counsel at the contempt hearing, (2) the trial court improperly quashed a subpoena directed to his former counsel, (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt, and (4) the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof in finding him in contempt (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was properly found guilty of contempt based on sufficient evidence and that any procedural errors did not harm the Defendant or affect the outcome (paras 5-6, 15-17).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to appointed counsel at the contempt hearing?
- Did the trial court err in quashing the Defendant's subpoena of his former counsel?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of contempt?
- Did the trial court apply the correct burden of proof in finding the Defendant guilty of contempt?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the appointment of counsel, the quashing of the subpoena, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the trial court applied the correct burden of proof in finding the Defendant guilty of contempt (paras 19-20).
Reasons
Per Harris L. Hartz, Chief Judge (Donnelly and Alarid JJ. concurring):
Right to Counsel: The trial court properly informed the Defendant of his right to appointed counsel if he was indigent. However, the Defendant failed to demonstrate indigence or pursue the appointment of counsel. The record suggested he was not indigent, as he retained private counsel before and after the hearing. Thus, the trial court did not err in allowing the Defendant to proceed pro se (paras 5-6).
Subpoena of Former Counsel: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena of the Defendant's former counsel, as it was issued with insufficient notice and without tendering a witness fee. The Defendant had ample time to prepare and failed to act diligently (paras 7-9).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: Testimony from witnesses established that the Defendant continued to act as a loan broker in violation of the injunction. The evidence was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 10-14).
Burden of Proof: The trial court's oral remarks indicated it applied a "clear and convincing evidence" standard rather than the required "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal contempt. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for the trial court to clarify whether it originally found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or to make a new determination under the correct standard (paras 15-18).