State Of Louisiana v. India Armani Ratliff In Re: Belinda Parker Brown

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 28, 2024
• Docket: 2023KW0989
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2023 KW 0989 STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MARCH 28, 2024 INDIA ARMANI RATLIFF

Brown, for rehearing, 22nd In Re: Belinda Parker applying Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. Judicial District

3163- M- 2022.

McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. BEFORE:

GRANTED. WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND REHEARING APPLICATION powers DENIED IN PART. A court possesses inherently all

of its jurisdiction and the necessary for the exercise

lawful It has the duty to require enforcement of its orders.

that criminal proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in expeditious manner and to so control the an orderly and

justice is done. A court has the power to proceedings that See La. Code Crim. P. art. 17. Where the punish for contempt. law is silent, the court has the inherent authority to fashion a the administration of remedy which will promote orderly Mims, 329 So. 2d 686, 688 ( La. 1976); State v. justice. State v. 2d Cir. 1/ 10/ 24) , So. 3d 2024 Dennis, 55, 462 ( La. App. f

WL 105015. However, the Code provides that a court may punish a person adjudged guilty of contempt of court in connection with a fine of not more than five hundred criminal proceeding by a

than six months, or dollars, or by imprisonment for not more

La. Code Crim. P. art. 25( B). Thus, the law is not both. issue. given the facts of this silent on this Accordingly, banning Belinda case, the trial court erred by permanently its contempt power, from Division E and the Parker Brown, under

courtrooms, unless subpoenaed as a witness, as a misdemeanor

or unless specific written authorization from the party, presiding judge was obtained.

Therefore, that portion of the ruling permanently banning Parker from the courtrooms is reversed. In all other Ms. respects, the writ application is denied as the record shows the adduced at the contempt proceedings was sufficient for evidence

fact to that element of the a rational trier of conclude every criminal constructive contempt charge was proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. State in Interest of R. J. S., 493 So. 2d 1199

1986). See also Rogers v. Dickens, 2006- 0898 ( La. App. 1st La. Cir. 2/ 9/ 07), 959 So. 2d 940, 945.

Pmc CHH

Miller, J., concurs.

C) URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

tEPUT CLERK C I OF COURT FOR THE T COURT