STATE IN INTEREST OF PANAGOULOPOULOS v. << (2022)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we find that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for direct contempt, La.C.Cr.P. art. 21(1), (5). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence.

REVERSED

The issue presented is whether Mr. Panagoulopoulos is guilty of direct contempt of court under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 21. Mr. Panagoulopoulos left the courthouse after being informed his client's case would proceed to trial. He was instructed by the trial judge to remain in court. He did not notify the judge or her staff he was leaving. Leaving after being instructed to stay is direct contempt. The very fact that he apparently double scheduled his calendar requiring his presence in two courts at the same time is contemptuous. His actions interfered with the business of the court and disrespected the court's authority.

The trial judge reacted poorly to this situation, and her comments on the record are troubling. However, her actions are not at issue, the attorney's actions are. Mr. Panagoulopoulos was advised at a bench conference that he was required to remain in court. He was not free to leave until released by the judge. Regardless of Judge Holmes’ reaction, and accepting the facts as stated by Judge Holmes, the evidence supports Mr. Panagoulopoulos’ conviction under La. C.Cr.P. art. 21(5). Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). I dissent.

Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.