Edith Wenczl Simpkins v. Otto Kent Simpkins
2012 WL 628011, 374 S.W.3d 413, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When reviewing a sentence for criminal contempt, an appellate court has the authority to modify a sentence it finds excessive. In determining whether a sentence, particularly a consecutive one, is excessive, courts should look for guidance to the principles and factors outlined in the state's criminal sentencing statutes to ensure the total sentence is justly deserved and no greater than necessary.
Facts:
- Otto Kent Simpkins ('Husband') and Edith Wenczl Simpkins ('Wife') entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) which was incorporated into their final divorce decree on June 1, 2009.
- The MDA explicitly prohibited either party from making any advances against their home equity line of credit (HELOC) after May 5, 2009.
- Between July 14, 2009, and November 30, 2009, Husband made ten separate withdrawals against the HELOC, totaling over $125,000.
- The MDA also obligated Husband to pay all property taxes on the marital residence, which he failed to do for the year 2009.
- Husband failed to pay a portion of the court-ordered pendente lite support owed to Wife.
- In violation of the MDA, Husband failed to maintain a real estate listing on the marital home and sold the parties' yacht slip without Wife's knowledge or consent.
Procedural Posture:
- Edith Wenczl Simpkins ('Wife') filed a Petition for Criminal Contempt against Otto Kent Simpkins ('Husband') in the trial court.
- After a hearing, the trial court found Husband guilty of fourteen separate counts of criminal contempt for violating the Marital Dissolution Agreement.
- The trial court sentenced Husband to ten days in jail for each of the fourteen counts and ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 140 days.
- The trial court also awarded attorney's fees to Wife.
- Husband, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, challenging the convictions and the length of the sentence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court impose an excessive sentence by ordering the maximum ten-day jail term for fourteen counts of criminal contempt to be served consecutively, for a total of 140 days, without considering general criminal sentencing principles regarding the proportionality and justification for consecutive sentences?
Opinions:
Majority - Clement, J.
Yes, imposing the maximum consecutive sentence for each of fourteen contempt counts without applying general sentencing principles results in an excessive sentence. An appellate court has the authority to modify an excessive sentence for criminal contempt, and should be guided by the state's criminal sentencing act to ensure the sentence is proportional to the offenses. The court affirmed the fourteen contempt convictions, finding the evidence, including bank records admitted under the business records exception, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court found the 140-day sentence excessive. Citing In re Sneed, the court treated criminal contempt as a misdemeanor for sentencing purposes and looked to the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act for guidance. It analyzed the factors for consecutive sentencing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b), noting that while being sentenced for criminal contempt is a permissible factor for consecutive sentencing, it was the only factor present and did not justify stacking the maximum sentence for every count. The court determined the sentence was not 'justly deserved' and was 'greater than that deserved' under the circumstances. It then modified the sentence by reducing the jail time for each count based on its relative seriousness and imposing a mix of consecutive and concurrent terms, resulting in a new total sentence of 49 days.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that criminal contempt sentencing, while at the discretion of the trial court, is not unbounded and is subject to appellate review for excessiveness. It directs Tennessee courts to apply the guiding principles of the general criminal sentencing statutes, particularly concerning consecutive sentencing, to contempt proceedings. This prevents the mechanical stacking of maximum sentences for multiple violations and instead requires a holistic assessment of the defendant's conduct to ensure the aggregate sentence is proportional and just. The case serves as a check on judicial power in contempt cases and promotes greater consistency and fairness in sentencing.
Unlock the full brief for Edith Wenczl Simpkins v. Otto Kent Simpkins