Holmes

I respectfully dissent.

Although I agree with the analysis of this case as set forth in the majority opinion, I do not agree with the disposition. I would sustain the judgment *945 of contempt, discharge the order to show cause, and deny the petition for the writ.

As the majority opinion has noted, in reviewing a judgment of contempt, the only questions before a reviewing court are whether the trial court has jurisdiction to render the judgment and whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to sustain the judgment and order. (Citing In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 121 , 514 P.2d 1201 , 68 A.L.R.3d 248 ].)

The validity of the contempt judgment is the only matter subject to our review. We are not to be concerned with whatever lawful punishment the trial court has imposed.

It is not disputed that the trial court had jurisdiction to make the contempt judgment. And the majority has found, correctly, that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that petitioner’s conduct was unlawful, in violation of section 1209, subdivision 8, in that she unlawfully interfered with the process or proceedings of the court. A violation of…

Summary

After a hearing by the court, Attorney Susan Holmes (petitioner) was found in contempt of court for assisting her husband Gerald 1 in attempting to avoid service of a subpoena. She was sentenced to eight hours in custody and a $500 fine. She seeks review of the contempt proceedings below by way of her petition for writ of habeas corpus or, in the alternative, for a writ of certiorari.

Petitioner attacks the proceedings below on several grounds. The principal ground of attack questions whether a person who knowingly assists another person in evading service of process is acting unlawfully, and thereby in a manner that is within the acts or omissions constituting contempt set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, subdivision 8. 2 We conclude that petitioner’s actions were unlawful and that in the future any such actions would constitute contempt as a violation of the foregoing section. Although we find petitioner’s conduct unlawful under this section, we have determined that this decision should not be applied retrospectively since this issue is “of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” (Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (1971) 404 U.S.…