AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 case arose from a courtroom incident during a hearing concerning the rights to a time-share condominium between a divorced couple. The appellant, an attorney representing one of the parties, was held in direct criminal contempt for repeatedly interrupting the trial judge, refusing to comply with a court order regarding proper courtroom attire, and attempting to leave the courtroom before the hearing concluded. The appellant also made threatening remarks toward the judge and pushed a deputy sheriff during the proceedings (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• State v. Cherryhomes, 114 N.M. 495, 840 P.2d 1261 (Ct. App. 1992): The appellant was previously held in contempt for refusing to comply with a court order regarding proper courtroom attire (para 3).
• Cherryhomes v. Vogel, 111 N.M. 229, 804 P.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1990): The appellant was previously sanctioned under Rule 11 for misconduct (para 15).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his actions did not constitute contempt and that the trial judge should have recused himself due to personal bias and prior contempt rulings against him. He also claimed that the court's dress code violated his First Amendment right to freedom of expression (paras 1, 14, 18-19).
• Respondent: Contended that the appellant's behavior, including his refusal to comply with court orders and his disruption of proceedings, justified the contempt charges. The respondent also argued that the trial judge acted within his discretion and was not biased (paras 15-17).

Legal Issues

• Did the appellant's actions constitute direct criminal contempt?
• Should the trial judge have recused himself due to alleged bias?
• Did the court's dress code violate the appellant's First Amendment rights?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellant's convictions for direct criminal contempt (para 22).

Reasons

Per Flores J. (Bivins and Chavez JJ. concurring):

• Contempt for Dress Code Violation: The court found sufficient evidence to support the contempt charge for the appellant's refusal to comply with the trial judge's order to fix his tie. The appellant had prior notice of the court's dress code requirements and willfully violated them. The court emphasized that such orders must be obeyed to preserve the authority and dignity of the court (paras 10-11, 21).

• Contempt for Disruption: The appellant's attempt to leave the courtroom before the hearing concluded, despite the judge's explicit order to remain, and his physical altercation with a deputy sheriff, constituted direct criminal contempt. The court held that this behavior disrupted the proceedings and showed blatant disrespect for the court's authority (paras 12-13).

• Recusal: The court rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge was biased. It found no evidence of personal animosity or bias arising from extra-judicial sources. The judge's prior contempt rulings against the appellant were based on judicial conduct and did not warrant recusal (paras 15-17).

• First Amendment Argument: The court declined to address the appellant's constitutional argument regarding freedom of expression, citing the collateral bar rule. The appellant was required to comply with the court's order and challenge its validity through proper legal channels rather than defy it (paras 19-21).