No. 24-7442

Patrick L. Booker v. South Carolina

Lower Court: South Carolina
Docketed: 2025-06-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-contempt due-process fourteenth-amendment judicial-proceeding procedural-rights summary-contempt
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Due Process Clause requires explicit notice and opportunity to be heard when a court delays criminal contempt punishment by one hour after a judicial proceeding

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require explicit notice and an opportunity to be heard when a court delays the imposition of criminal contempt punishment for one hour after the completion of underlying any judicial proceeding? Did the South Carolina Supreme Court violate clearly established federal law set by Supreme Court precedent by sentencing the Petitioner, absentia and after one hour delay, to six months of confinement for criminal contempt without affording prior notice of the charges or a meaningful opportunity to be heard in defense? When a trial court delays summary contempt proceedings for one hour, does the absence of notice of the specific charges and the time of the hearing constitute a denial of the contemnor's fundamental due process rights as articulated in Taylor v. Hayes and Codispoti v. Pennsylvania? Is it a violation of the contemnor ’s procedural due process rights for a court to issue an hour delayed contempt sentence in the contemnor ’s absence, 2 without providing reasonable notice or the ability to present evidence and argument in defense? Does the delayed imposition of a direct criminal contempt sanction, without explicit findings of necessity for dispensing with due proces to preserve order, conflict with the Supreme Court's guidance in United Mine Workers of America v. BagwelP. Under what circumstances, if any, may a state court dispense with the rudiments of due process —notice and hearing —when issuing a delayed summary contempt order, and does such dispensation comport with constitutional guarantees? Does the absence of an "overriding necessity for instant action to preserve order" in delayed summary contempt proceedings negate any justification for dispensing with the ordinary rudiments of due process, such as notice and hearing? Does a Question-and'Answer Community Event Hosted by a Judge Constitute a Judicial Proceeding (i.e., a Cause or Hearing) Before Him Such That He May Hold in Contempt One Who Ventures to Publish Matter That Tends to Make Judge Unpopular? 3

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-15
Waiver of right of respondent South Carolina to respond filed.
2025-04-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 17, 2025)

Attorneys

Patrick Booker
Patrick Lee Booker — Petitioner
Patrick Lee Booker — Petitioner
South Carolina
Donald John ZelenkaSouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Donald John ZelenkaSouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent