Preview:

Terrence Lynn Zetty v. Susan M. Piatt No. 144, September Term, 2000 Headnote: Terrence Zetty, appellant, was found to be in constructive civil contempt of a protective order and was sentenced to 179 days of incarceration by the Circuit Court for Charles County. We hold that the Circuit Court did not comply with Maryland Rule 15-206(e), which provides that when incarceration is sought in a constructive civil contempt hearing and an alleged contemnor appears in court without counsel, the court must confirm that the alleged contemnor received a notice of the right to counsel and that the alleged contemnor knowingly and voluntarily waives that right. We also hold that the Charles County Sheriff's Office is not an authorized party, in accordance with Maryland Rule 15-206(b), to file a petition for contempt that alleges a violation of a protective order and that initiates a constructive civil contempt proceeding.

Circuit Court for Charles County Case # 08-C-00-000700 DV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 144 September Term, 2000

TERRENCE LYNN ZETTY

v.

SUSAN M. PIATT

Bell, C. J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ.

Opinion by Cathell, J.

Filed: July 16, 2001

On September 7, 2000, the Circuit Court for Charles County found Terrence Lynn Zetty, appellant,1 to be in constructive civil contempt of a domestic violence protective order that was issued on April 27, 2000. The Circuit Court found that appellant had violated the

protective order by apparently failing to turn in all firearms that were in his possession to the Charles County Sheriff's Office. The Circuit Court sentenced appellant to 179 days of

incarceration unless appellant purged the contempt by turning in the firearms or by producing evidence that he was no longer in possession of the firearms. Reconsideration, which was denied by the Circuit Court after a hearing. Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. We granted certiorari on our own initiative prior to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals. Appellant has presented four questions: 1. Whether Zetty was erroneously held in constructive contempt and incarcerated in violation of his right to counsel[?] Whether the constructive contempt proceeding was without force and effect because initiated by an unauthorized person (police officer in Office of the County Sheriff) who lacked standing to file the contempt petition[?] Whether the order of contempt impermissibly extends beyond the findings made in the antecedent civil proceeding and lacks substantial evidentiary support[?] Whether the overriding criminal character of the contempt proceeding required that Zetty be granted the right to trial by jury and the benefit of Appellant filed a Motion for

2.

3.

4.

It is not exactly clear who the appellee is in the contempt proceedings, including this particular appeal. Ms. Piatt did not initiate the contempt proceeding and has not participated in it, even though she is stated as the appellee on counsels' briefs. At oral argument, counsel from the Attorney General's office, who filed a brief for the appellee and was arguing before this Court on behalf of appellee, was unable to clarify exactly who the appellee is in this case.

1

the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt[?][2] We answer yes to questions one and two and, therefore, we reverse the Circuit Court's finding of contempt. We hold that the Circuit Court did not comply with Maryland Rule 15-206(e),

which provides that when incarceration is sought in a constructive civil contempt hearing and an alleged contemnor appears in court without counsel, the court must confirm that the alleged contemnor received a notice of the right to counsel and that the alleged contemnor knowingly and voluntarily waives that right. We also hold that the Charles County Sheriff's Office is not

The contempt proceeding in the case at bar was a constructive civil contempt. In State v. Roll and Scholl, 267 Md. 714, 298 A.2d 867 (1973), we stated that: Today, the line between civil and criminal contempt is frequently hazy and indistinct. Often the same acts or omissions may constitute or at least embrace aspects of both. Tyler v. Baltimore County, 256 Md. 64, 259 A.2d 307 (1969). When this is the case, an alleged contemnor may be answerable in either a civil or criminal contempt proceeding. But, in this State, the distinction between the two types of contempt has been preserved and is important. A civil contempt proceeding is intended to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to a suit and to compel obedience to orders and decrees primarily made to benefit such parties. These proceedings are generally remedial in nature and are intended to coerce future compliance. Thus, a penalty in a civil contempt must provide for purging. On the other hand, the penalty imposed in a criminal contempt is punishment for past misconduct which may not necessarily be capable of remedy. Therefore, such a penalty does not require a purging provision but may be purely punitive. In this State, to these factors must be added the degree of proof required to establish a contempt

Download Zetty v. Piatt.pdf

Maryland Law