1 NICS App. 68, Adams v. Skokomish Tribe (January 1990)
IN THE SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SKOKOMISH INDIAN RESERVATION
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
Richard M. Adams Jr. v. Skokomish Indian Tribe
Nos. SKO-CrF-9/86-0127, 10/86-0154, 10/86-0155 (January 4, 1990)
SUMMARY
In an appeal from an order of contempt of court for failure to pay fines and restitution, the Court of Appeals held that a Notice of Appeal was untimely where it was filed one month after the order to make payments was entered orally, two weeks after it was filed, and the 10 day period in which to file an appeal had expired.
FULL TEXT
|
Associate Justices David Ward, Emma Dulik, and Rose E. Purser. |
|
|
Ric Kilmer, Prosecutor for the Skokomish Indian Tribe. |
APPELLATE OPINION
WARD, Associate Justice:
Richard M. Adams filed a Notice of Appeal in these cases after he was found in contempt of court. Briefs were requested by the appellate panel and a brief was received from the Skokomish Tribe. The Appellate Court convened on June 21, 1989. Richard M. Adams was not present. The Skokomish Tribe was represented by its Prosecutor, Ric Kilmer. The Skokomish Tribe argued the appeal should be dismissed since it is untimely and Richard M. Adams was not present on June 21, 1989.
The proceedings and facts about this appeal will be discussed.
The Skokomish Tribe properly argued timeliness and the absence of the appellant; and the appeal will be dismissed.
Several proceedings occurred before the appeal was filed and these proceedings will be discussed.
At a hearing on February 9, 1989, Richard M. Adams was found to be in contempt of court for failure to make payments on fines and restitution in these cases. The Order for Contempt was filed in Skokomish Tribal Court on February 23, 1989. The contempt order suspended 90 days in jail on specified conditions. On an oral motion by Richard M. Adams a hearing occurred on March 9, 1989.
1 NICS App. 68, Adams v. Skokomish Tribe (January 1990) p. 69
The transcript of this proceeding concerns assertions about the inability of the Appellant to pay the fines or perform community service. The order which was signed on March 21, 1989, indicates the Appellant requested a reconsideration of the contempt order. The order also continued the cases, stayed the bench warrant, and the Appellant was advised of his right to appeal the contempt sentence.
On March 9, 1989 a Notice of Appeal was filed by Richard M. Adams (hereinafter Appellant). The handwritten document was attached to the Notice as follows:
I, Richard Adams, would like to appeal the Judgment Order of contempt by Judge Roe on the grounds that the time payments are to [sic] high and there is no possible way to pay $250.00 a month.
I have just got out of prison October 30, and am trying to get my feet on the ground and have my own apartment and court obligations in 3 other counties besides this one and I need to fulfill there [sic] needs as well as the Court's. I thank you in your cooperation in this matter ....
Bye [sic] first talking to the Judge I would like to appeal the whole decision in this case on the account I have been incarcerated through the whole time this has been in effect. I again thank you in your cooperation in this matter.
Before considering the arguments of the Appellee two other procedural issues deserve consideration. The Skokomish Tribal Code is specific about the right to appeal. Section 406, Rule 2, ''Right to Appeal" provides:
Any person who claims, in good faith, that the Skokomish Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case shall have the right to appeal from the final judgment.
The handwritten document alleges the payments are too high, other court obligations and a desire to appeal the whole decision because Appellant was incarcerated. A claim about the mistake in interpreting the law or procedure is not alleged in this Notice of Appeal. It does not appear that an appeal has been sufficiently alleged for an appeal. The code also contains a provision about the timeliness of appeals. Section 406, Rule 3, ''Notice of Appeal" provides:
Any person who wishes to appeal the judgment of the Tribal Court shall notify the clerk within ten days after the judgment is final. If a party first asks for a new trial, rehearing, or reconsideration and the motion is denied, the ten-day limit shall be counted from the day when the motion is denied.
Under this provision a person has several remedies, as follows: appeal, new trial, rehearing or reconsideration.
1 NICS App. 68, Adams v. Skokomish Tribe (January 1990) p. 70
If a reconsideration is denied, a person has ten days to appeal. In this case it appears that a reconsideration of the contempt of court order was granted and Richard M. Adams was told he could appeal. It is not clear that a double remedy was intended under this section of the Code.
The arguments of the Appellee will be considered.
The Appellee argues that the appeal is untimely. See Appellee's Brief at 4 and 5. The order of contempt was entered orally on February 9, 1989 and filed on February 23, 1989. A timely appeal under Section 406, Rule 3 should have been filed by March 5, 1989, which was a Sunday, or by the next court day. The Appellee did not cite any cases about timeliness and at the proceeding asserted that he was unaware of any decisions on this issue. The appeal was filed March 9, 1989. This is beyond the ten day time limit. It is concluded that the Appeal is untimely. It is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Appellee also argued that the appeal should be dismissed since the Appellant was not present for the proceeding. There is no precedent for such a dismissal and such a rule is not contained in the Code. The Appellee further argued for this rule unless there is a valid reason for an Appellant to be absent. A valid reason will be considered good cause, and good cause includes, but is not limited to, serious illness or death in the immediate family.
Further, a dismissal under these circumstances will further the timely administration of justice when there is not an obvious mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure.
It is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
Based on the conclusions contained herein, the Appeal is dismissed.