The way Judge Michael Warren of the Oakland County Circuit Court saw things, he was giving Brian James Veilleux a break when he sentenced him to three years of probation with 365 days in jail (with work-release) for possessing cocaine.
The sentencing guidelines called for up to 34 months in prison, and under the plea agreement, Veilleux could have received a 1- to 15-year prison term.
Veilleux had an impressive list of felony and misdemeanor convictions, 10 in all. Most were related to drunk driving or drugs.
But Warren decided to be lenient and told Veilleux just that when he announced the sentence.
All things considered, Veilleux should have been grateful. But something must have rubbed him the wrong way.
Very shortly after being sentenced, defendant began to shout and curse at the trial court judge. He persisted in this behavior despite being told that he was being found in contempt for each outburst. The trial court held defendant in contempt a total of seven times before defendant was removed from the courtroom. The outburst was not transcribed, but defendant does not contest the characterization of his behavior.
The trial court entered an order … sentencing defendant to jail terms of 90 days for each contempt citation. The terms were to be served consecutive to one another and consecutive to defendant’s one-year jail term that defendant was serving as part of his probation sentence. Defendant never appealed from the sentences. People v. Veilleux. (Michigan Court of Appeals) (unpublished per curiam) (majority opinion) (dissenting opinion)
In short, Veilleux, who was no stranger to the court system, got a year in jail for possessing less than 25 grams of cocaine and was ordered to serve significantly more time — 630 days — for being lippy with the judge.
After a year in jail, Veilleux was released in error without serving his seven consecutive contempt sentences.
His early freedom was short-lived. Less than three weeks later, he was arrested for assault. He was drunk at the time. The assault charge was dropped. But being drunk was a probation violation.
Warren was generous in allowing credit for time served but gave Veilleux a long sentence for the probation violation — 34 months to 15 years in prison. That sentence, said Warren, would begin to run right after Veilleux served all seven of his consecutive contempt sentences.
In the Court of Appeals, Veilleux argued that Warren lacked authority to order consecutive contempt sentences and to order that the drug sentence would run consecutive to the contempt sentences.
We’ve been down this road before with Judge Warren, the Court of Appeals replied. In a 2005 case, People v. Williams (Michigan Court of Appeals) (unpublished per curiam), the COA affirmed Warren after he imposed four consecutive contempt sentences on a “rude and disruptive” defendant. According to the Williams panel:
The clear and unambiguous language of MCL 768.7a(1) requires that each of defendant’s sentences for contempt not only be consecutive to the term of imprisonment being served at the time the contemptuous conduct occurred but also be consecutive to “terms of imprisonment which the person … has become liable to serve.” Because as each instance of contempt of court occurred, the trial court properly and immediately found defendant guilty of contempt, MCL 600.1711(1) … defendant “has become liable to serve” a term of imprisonment for that contempt of court. Thus, as the trial court found defendant guilty of each succeeding contempt as it occurred, defendant was liable to serve his prior contempt sentences.
The Veilleux panel acknowledged that Williams was not binding.
We find Williams to be instructive only to the extent that it holds that “each contempt sentence is required to be served consecutively to those prior contempt sentences for which defendant had already become liable to serve.” Although raised in the context of allowing stacking of multiple contempt sentences, the phrase supports a finding that a defendant should always be required to serve a sentence for which he has become liable to serve. …
Defendant must be made to complete the sentence from which he was improperly discharged. Failure to so order would result in defendant suffering no penalty for his outrageous courtroom behavior and criminal contempt convictions.
In her dissent, Judge Deborah Servitto argued that MCL 768.7a(1) doesn’t apply in this case. She noted that the statute applies to “a person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state …. and who commits a crime during that incarceration[.]”
Veilleux wasn’t incarcerated when Warren banged the contempt gavel seven times.
And, said Servitto, this brings us to another point for consideration.
I am sure that most judges have experienced the not-so-respectfully expressed resentment of a defendant at one time or another. But, as observed in In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 107; 667 NW2d 68, (2003), when wielding contempt powers, “[t]rial courts …. must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.” After all, “[j]udges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.” Id. In imposing seven consecutive 90-day sentences, it appears as if the trial judge was acting in response to an offense to his sensibilities.
Veilleux filed a leave application with the Michigan Supreme Court. Perhaps Servitto’s sensible dissent got the MSC thinking about a couple of things. The MSC will hear oral arguments on whether to grant leave to appeal.
At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether sentences imposed after a finding of criminal contempt must be served consecutively under MCL 768.7a; and (2) whether a court may hold a person in contempt multiple times for each contemptuous act in a continuous course of conduct.
The MSC also ordered “the Oakland Circuit Court to determine whether any recording of the defendant’s contemptuous behavior exists, and if so, to provide a copy of that record to this Court.”
The Michigan Lawyer 