WPC)( ķ[IHRHFyR9)z VѬLfQ5NR$q/ۘQߒhkb2A8<=o<,ݭDPfR~ƳO U5U} ZxRǤLSfJ7+Ǯ fh<[OGUI 8@D.{'+6Љyc=ҷ] Dx'-Y&M<@=KG!Q 6FBwigi~# #Z S&y(ٱeQRBC4:RvocS-r,(n#n胁 uNghK $C4h:+֚uVt~tx8y\S_B"Fe pi@ƽq<&a՝_=A.d3&lljP 9@àfImMsG$/~yR,"3b %\^ b 0nUFNwD4H\ zk m U*N   v < 0DN UNE='?#f0/N_f/!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!b#################################### 0&#&#&#&# B$$ 0.$ D5$ D-% 0K4%4% AS%% 0& 0D<' A'i|f/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.t2 ~13|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular DinwiddieChastainFulbrightBurnettelimineestoppedRaglandinternetspousal RSCCRoaneGethersgrandfatherlyAcreecontemnorFULLITON COALillardHighersGartsKrelstein CrimunambigousMcCary t]o a]llIntlBagwellAhern s]etBrowderBlountp]rosecutionsLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   RWf$      1  t  _WenotethatWifesappellatecounselwasnotinvolvedinthetrialcourtproceedings.(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular  RWf$      5  t  _Wifeappearsinthisappealasthe Appellee.AlthoughWifesoughtanorderofcontemptagainstCorder,  theexpungementpetitionisaseparateproceeding,anditmaybethattheState,ratherthanWife,wouldbethe q appropriate Appelleeinthisappeal.Neitherpartyraisesthisissue,however,andweneednotaddressitinthis 2 Opinion.\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0 & RWf$      4  t  _QP tPriortooralargumentinthiscause,Wifefiledamotiontodismisstheappealbasedon Statev.Adler ,92  S.W.3d397(Tenn.2002),inwhichtheCourtheldthatneithertheStatenoradefendantisauthorizedtoappealatrial r courtsexpungementorderunderRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure. SeeAdler ,92S.W.3dat401. 3 Thatmotionwasdenied,andoralargumentwasheardonCordersappeal.Weaddresstheapplicationof Adler inmore E detaillaterinthisOpinion.#t QP~# D RWf$      2  t  _ThecircumstancessurroundingCordersreceiptofthepsychologicalrecordswerehotlydisputedinthetrial  court,butarenotrelevanttotheexpungementissuesonappeal.  RWf$      7  t  _TennesseeCodeAnnotated tt29-9-103(2000)provides:  8  򀀀299103.Punishment.! (a)Thepunishmentforcontemptmaybebyfineorbyimprisonment,or 2 both.G   8  (b)Wherenototherwisespeciallyprovided,thecircuit,chancery,andappellatecourtsarelimited  toafineoffiftydollars($50.00),andimprisonmentnotexceedingten(10)days,and,exceptas y providedin29-9-108,allothercourtsarelimitedtoafineoftendollars($10.00).#t t# \ RWf$      6  t  _Wereitnotfortheholdingin Adler ,wewouldbelessinclinedtograntthewrit,because,inourview,allowing  appealsbasedontheargumentsoftheStatein Adler andCorderintheinstantcaseallowtheaggrievedpartytoappeal r atrialcourtsdecisiononexpungementdespitethefactthattherighttoadirectappealontheissueisnotgrantedinRule 4 3.Inotherwords,allowingsuchargumentstobeentertainedviaawritofcertiorariallowstheexceptiontoswallowthe E rule,becauseapartywouldinessencehaveanavenueforappealingtherulingonanexpungementpetitionineverycase.  Ѐ    RWf$      3  t  _TheSpecialProsecutorsreportwasfiledunderseal.Itwasnotfiledasapartoftheappellaterecord,andthis  CourthasdeniedWifesmotionsupplementtherecordtoincludethereport.Therefore,wedonotconsiderthereport q inreachingadeterminationonthemeritsofthisappeal.- -(|G2Wf$ !.8dd8         0  t d(|3w!$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w!$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8oXXdd8  OY@ +FINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#+F#Ԉ #   February19,2003Session F XoX #XXo#LESLIEANNROBINSON ? v.  P WILLIAML.FULLITONandVALERIET.CORDERXoX   a @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitforShelbyCounty  [ @@No.1642872WilliamB.Acree,Jr.,Judge  E  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200201746_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember6,_2003_   AV) ` dE<` A     Thiscaseinvolvesthetrialcourtsrefusaltoexpungetherecordsofacriminalcontemptproceeding. x Intheunderlyingdivorceaction,thewifemovedforcriminalcontemptsanctionsagainstthe a husbandsattorney.Thetrialcourtassignedaspecialprosecutortoinvestigatethecriminal J contemptchargesagainsttheattorney.Thespecialprosecutorlaterdeterminedthattherewas 3 insufficientevidenceofcontempt.Theattorneythereafterrequestedthatthetrialcourtexpungethe l publicrecordsrelatingtothechargeofcriminalcontemptundertheexpungementstatute,Tennessee U CodeAnnotated4032101(a)(1).Thetrialcourtdeniedtheattorneysrequest,concludingthat > thestatutedidnotapplytoacriminalcontemptproceedingwithinthemeaningofthestatute.The ' attorneynowappeals.Althoughtherulesofappellateproceduredonotprovidefortheattorneyto  appealthetrialcourtsdecisionrelatingtoexpungement,theappealwillbetreatedasapetitionfor  awritofcertiorari.Wenowgrantthewritandreversethetrialcourtsdecision,concludingthatthe  expungementstatuteappliesinsofarasthecontemptchargeswerecriminalinnature.#XXo#XoX {  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtis M  ReversedandRemanded  7!    #Xo #XoX.HollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,J.,andDavid  #Z" R.Farmer,J.,joined. #C# JamesR.Garts,Jr.,andShannonE.Holbrook,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ValerieT. %!% Corder. &!&   MimiPhillips,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamL.Fulliton. (#( RonaldKrelsteinandRebeccaMiller,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,LeslieAnnRobinson. R*%*    $,t', OPINION #XXo #XoX  #XXoY#XoX     XoXXXoOnNovember9,1999,Plaintiff/AppelleeLeslieAnnRobinson( Wife)filedacomplaint  fordivorceagainstDefendant/AppellantWilliamL.Fulliton( Husband).AppellantValerieT. l Corder( Corder)wasretainedtorepresentHusbandinthedivorceaction.Duringthecourseof U discovery,Husband,throughCorder,soughttheproductionofWifespsychiatricandpsychological >  records.OnSeptember29,2000,aftermuchdebateregardingtheissue,thetrialcourtenteredan ' w orderindicatingthattheserecordswerenotdiscoverableanddenyingHusbandsmotiontocompel  ` productionofthem.  I   OnNovember2,2000,CorderhanddeliveredalettertothelawofficeofWifesdivorce    attorney,statingherintenttoreturntohisofficeonNovember6,2000,toreviewdiscoverymaterials   thatshepresumedwouldbeavailableforinspectionandcopying. #  1      ׀OnNovember6,2000,as   indicatedinherletter,CorderreturnedtoWifesattorneyslawofficeforthestatedpurposeof   reviewingdiscoverymaterials.Apparentlybymistake,aparalegalinthelawofficeofWifes o  attorneyreleasedtoCorderaportionofthedisputedpsychologicalrecords.Q #  2      ׀Upondiscoveryofthis, X  Corderapparentlyinitiallyrefusedtoreturntherecords. A   OnNovember7,2000,basedonCorderhavingobtainedcopiesofWifespsychological c recordsandherrefusaltoreturnthem,Wifefiledamotionto,amongotherthings,joinCorderas L apartyinthelawsuitandfindherin criminalcontemptoftheCourtsSeptember29,2000order 5 denyingHusbandsmotiontocompelproductionofWifesmentalhealthrecords.Shortly  thereafter,onthesamedate,Wife,herattorneys,andCorderappearedbeforethetrialcourtforan  emergencyhearingonWifespetition.Atthattime,thetrialcourtgaveoralnoticethatthe  contempthearingwouldbescheduledforNovember17,2000.Additionally,thetrialcourtissued  afiat,orderingCordertoappearanddefendthechargeofcontempt,andtoshowcausewhyshe r shouldnotbeheldincontemptofthetrialcourtsorder.Thetrialcourtsubsequentlyappointeda [ SpecialProsecutortoinvestigatethecontemptallegationsmadeinthepetition.AccordingtoWife, D thepsychologicalrecordsobtainedbyCorderwereretrievedbyCorderscounselinunopened -} envelopesandweregiventotheSpecialProsecutor. f   OnJanuary24,2002,theSpecialProsecutorfiledhisreport. #  3      ׀TheSpecialProsecutors  8 reportconcludedthathedidnotbelievethattheevidenceestablishedthatCorderwasincontempt !!  ofcourt.Therefore,onApril22,2002,JudgeAcreeenteredanorderdismissingthecontempt " ! proceedingagainstCorder. #"   OnMay2,2002,Corderfiledamotiontoexpungethepublicrecordsrelatingtothecriminal  contemptproceedingspursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated4032101(a)(1).Thatstatute  providesinpertinentpart:  8  4032101.Destructionorreleaseofrecords. "(a)(1)Allpublicrecordsofa T personwhohasbeen chargedwithamisdemeanor orafelony,andwhichchargehas @  beendismissed...shall,uponpetitionbythatpersontothecourthavingjurisdiction * z insuchpreviousaction,beremovedanddestroyedwithoutcosttosuchperson.#XoXX Xo##XXo#XoX XoXXXo c   Tenn.CodeAnn.4032101(a)(1)(Supp.2002)(emphasisadded)( expungementstatute).  5  Corderarguedthat,becauseshewas chargedwithamisdemeanorbyvirtueofthecriminal    contemptproceedings,andbecausethosechargesweredismissed,thetrialcourtwasrequiredto   expungetherecordsrelatingtotheproceedingspursuanttothestatute.OnJune14,2002,thetrial   courtenteredanorderdenyingCordersmotionforexpungement,statingthat itisthisCourts   opinionthat[4032101],pertainingtoexpungement,doesnotapplytothistypeofacriminal r  contemptproceedings.Cordernowappealsthatorder#XoXX XoT # XoXXXo# X Xo5 # XoX . #  4       [    Onappeal,Cordermakesthesameargumentasinthetrialcourt,thatachargeofcriminal -} contemptistheequivalentofamisdemeanorchargeforpurposesofsection4032101.Sheasserts f that,becausethepunishmentforcriminalcontemptcouldbeafineand/orimprisonmentforlessthan O ayear,thenthecriminalcontemptchargewouldbeconsideredamisdemeanorchargeunderthe 8 statutorydefinitionof misdemeanor.Thus,becausethecontemptcharge,amisdemeanorcharge, ! wasultimatelydismissed,thetrialcourtwasrequiredtoexpungetherecordofallproceedings   relatingtheretouponherrequestaccordingtotheexpungementstatute.Incontrast,Wifeargues#XoXX Xo##X #  5        #XXo##  XoX thatthetrialcourtsdecisionwascorrectbecause(1)thecontemptproceedingsbelowwereactually  civilinnatureand,thus,section4032101wouldnotapply,and(2)eveniftheproceedingsbelow u werecriminalinnature,thatfactdoesnotnecessarilyrequirethattherecordsrelatingtothose ^ proceedingsbeexpungedunderthestatute. G   Initially,weaddressCordersrighttoappealthetrialcourtsdecision.In Statev.Adler ,92 i S.W.3d397(Tenn.2002),theTennesseeSupremeCourtstatedthat theGeneralAssembly  S specificallychosetoallowneithertheStatenoracriminaldefendantanappealasofrightunderRule  < 3[oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure]fromanunfavorablerulingconcerningan !%  expungementorder.92S.W.3dat401.#XoXX Xoa(#X6;XXXo#kXX6;(#X6;XkInthatcase,appellantAdlerwasindictedforaggravated "! childneglectofachildundersixyearsofage,afelony.Afterajurytrial,Adlerwasconvictedof  thelesserincludedoffenseofrecklessendangerment,amisdemeanor. Id. at399.Pursuantto  section4032101,Adlerpetitionedforexpungementofallpublicrecordspertainingtohis  indictment,prosecution,andtrialforaggravatedchildneglect.ThetrialcourtgrantedAdlers l petitionforexpungement. Id. U    TheStateappealedthetrialcourtsexpungementdecisionpursuanttoRule3_(c_)ofthe ) y TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsheardtheappeal.Inan  b earliercase, Statev.McCary ,815S.W.2d220(Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.1991),thecriminalappellate  K courthadaddressedwhetherRule3(b),applicabletocriminaldefendants,providedabasisonwhich  5  acriminaldefendantcouldappealthedenialofarequestforexpungement.The McCary court    determinedthat,despitethefactthatexpungementwasnotenumeratedintheRuleasarulingfrom   whichacriminaldefendantcouldappeal,thecriminaldefendantneverthelesshadarighttoappeal,   becausetheomissionofthatgroundforappealwas apparentlyanoversightinthedraftingofthe   rule. McCary ,815S.W.2dat221.Basedonthereasoningin McCary ,theintermediateappellate s  courtin Adler permittedtheStatetoappealthegrantingofAdlerspetitionforexpungement.On ]  appeal,in Adler ,theTennesseeSupremeCourtreversedthedecisionoftheintermediateappellate G court,rejectingthereasoningin McCary . #XoXXX6;,##XXo,#XoXAdler ,92S.W.2dat401.TheCourtnotedthatRule3_(c_) 1 oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurepermitstheStatetoappealasofrightonlyina k limitednumberofcircumstances,andthattheadvisorycommissioncommenttotheRulestatedthat T appealasofrightwouldlie onlyinthosecircumstancesspecified.... Id. at400(quoting = AdvisoryCommissionCommenttoRule3(emphasisadded)).Disagreeingwith _McCary_s  ' conclusionthatthefailuretoprovideforsuchanappealwas anoversight,theCourtheld:  8  BecausetheexpungementstatutewasineffectatthetimeRule3becameeffective,  wemustconcludethatthisCourtandtheGeneralAssemblyspecificallychoseto | allowneithertheStatenoracriminaldefendantanappealasofrightunderRule3 e fromanunfavorablerulingconcerninganexpungementorder.N   8  BecauseoftheplainandunambigouslanguageofRules3(b)and3_(c_),weconclude  p thatneithertheStatenoracriminaldefendanthastheauthoritytoappealasofright  Y anunfavorablerulingconcerninganexpungementorderunderRule3. B    Id. at401. "!   #XXo_5#XoXCorderarguesthattheholdingin Adler ismerelydictaasitappliestocriminaldefendants, $# sincetheappealin Adler wasfiledbytheState,notacriminaldefendant.AlthoughCorderis % $ correctinthisregard,theCourtin Adler   specificallystatedthatitsreasoningappliedtoappealsfiled l&!% byboththeStateandcriminaldefendants.TheCourtfurtherstatedthat [t]otheextentthat McCary  V'"& isinconsistentwiththisopinion,itisoverruled. Adler ,92S.W.3dat401.Inlightofthisexplicit @(#' statement,weareconstrainedtoapplytheholdingin Adler tothefactsofthiscaseandtoconclude *)z$(  thatCorderisnotentitledtoappealtheunfavorableexpungementdecisionbythetrialcourt.#XXo;#XoX *d%)   Corderarguesinthealternativethatherappealshouldbetreatedasapetitionforawritof   certiorari.In Adler ,despiteitsholdingthatneithertheStatenoracriminaldefendanthastheright  toappealarulingregardingexpungement,theCourt  permittedtheappealtoproceedasapetition  forawritofcertioraripursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated278101.Thatsectionprovides: l 8  Thewritofcertiorarimaybegrantedwheneverauthorizedbylaw,andalsoincases >  whereaninferiortribunal,board,orofficerexercisingjudicialfunctionshas ' w exceededthejurisdictionconferred,orisactingillegally,when,inthejudgmentof  ` thecourt,thereisnootherplain,speedy,oradequateremedy. I   Tenn.CodeAnn.278101(2000).The Adler CourtreasonedthattheStatesargument!thatthe    word chargeintheexpungementstatuteembracesallcharges,includinglesserincludedoffenses   !involvedanallegationthatthetrialcourtactedwithoutlegalauthority.Thus,therebeing no   otherplain,speedy,oradequateremedy,thecourttreatedtheStatesappealasapetitionforawrit   ofcertiorariandconsideredthemeritsofitsargument. Adler ,92S.W.3dat401.Ultimately,the p  CourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsgrantofAdlerspetitionforexpungement. Id. at402. Z  #XXo?#XoX  Corderarguesthat,asin Adler, herappealshouldbetreatedasapetitionforawritof .~ certiorari .WenotethatthesubstantiveargumentsmadebyCorderandbytheStatein Adler are j verysimilar.Corderarguesthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutlegalauthoritytodenyherrequestfor T expungementbasedonthedefinitionof misdemeanorinthestatute,whereastheStatein Adler  = baseditsargumentontheproperdefinitionoftheterm chargeasitisusedinthestatute.In Adler , ' theSupremeCourtcharacterizedtheStatespositionasanallegationthat thetrialcourtwasacting  contrarytothelawingrantingthe[defendants]petitionforexpungement.Inthesameway,  Cordersargumentinvolvesanallegationthatthetrialcourtactedcontrarytothelawinfailingto  grantherexpungementrequest.Moreover,becausethereisnorighttoappealanunfavorableruling | onexpungement, thereisnootherplain,speedy,oradequateremedywithoutgrantingthewrit. e  See Tenn.CodeAnn.278101.Again,becauseofthesimilarityofthelegalargumentsmadein N  Adler andinthecaseatbar,wearecompelledtofollowtheCourtsconclusionin Adler thatthisis 8 anappropriatecaseforgrantingthewritofcertiorariandentertainingthemeritsofCordersappeal. #  6      ׀ "r Ѐ#XXoF#XoX  Weturnnowtothemeritsofthecase.ThetrialcourtrejectedCordersrequestbasedonthe  D conclusionthattheexpungementstatute doesnotapplytothistypeofacriminalcontempt !-  proceeding.#XXoM#XoX XoXXXoԀTheexpungementstatuteappliesto publicrecordsofapersonwhohasbeencharged "! withamisdemeanor....Tenn.CodeAnn.4032101.Corderarguesthat,becausean #" unfavorablerulingcouldhaveresultedinpunishmentbytheassessmentofafineorimprisonment $# forlessthanayear,thechargewasactuallyamisdemeanorcharge.ShepointsoutthatTennessee % $ CodeAnnotated3911110providesforthedefinitionof misdemeanor,statingthat [a]ll  violationsofthelawpunishablebyfineorconfinementforlessthanone(1)year,orboth,are  denominatedmisdemeanors.Cordernotesthatcriminalcontemptispunishablebyafineor  imprisonmentforuptotendays,andarguesthatcriminalcontemptmustbeconsidereda k misdemeanor.Incontrast,Wifemaintains# X Xo@O# XoX #XoXX Xo_O# XoXXXothatthecontemptproceedingsbelowwereactuallycivil, T ratherthancriminal,innature,andthattheexpungementstatuteisthereforenotapplicable. =    Determiningwhetheracontemptsanctioniscivilorcriminalinnature turnsonthe  _ characterandpurposeofthesanctioninvolved. InternationalUnion,UnitedMineworkersof  H Americav.Bagwell ,512U.S.821,827(1994).# X XogS# XoX #XoXX XoS# XoXXXoԀThepurposeofacivilcontemptsanctionis  2  remedial,inthatitisintendedtocoercecompliancebythecontemnor,andtovindicatetherights    ofthecomplainant. Seeid. at828. Thus,withcivilcontempt,theoneincontempthasthekeys   tothejailandcanpurgethecontemptbycomplyingwiththecourtsorder. Ahernv.Ahern ,15   S.W.3d73,79(Tenn.2000).Acontemptsanctionisconsideredtobecriminal,however,whenthe   sanctionisimposedbythecourt simplyaspunishmentforthecontempt. Id. UnderTennessee r  CodeAnnotated299103,thesanctionforcriminalcontemptcannotexceedafineof$50or \  imprisonmentfortendays. #  7      ׀Unlikecivilcontempt, [a]partywhoisincriminalcontemptcannot E befreedbyeventualcompliance. Id. 󀀀 .~   Wifearguesthatthecontemptproceedingsinthiscasewerecivilinnature,# X XoU# XoX Ԁbecauseshe R sought civilremedies,requestingthatCorderbecompelledtoreturntherecordsandenjoinedfrom ; disseminatinganyinformationcontainedtherein.Shearguesthatshefiledthemotionforcontempt $ inthiscasetovindicateherownrights,nottherightsoftheState.     Cordercontends,however,thatthecircumstancessurroundingthecontemptproceedings  indicatethattheywerecriminalinnature.ShepointsoutthatWifesmotionsoughtafindingthat x Corderwasin criminalcontempt,andthatthelanguageinthefiatissuedonNovember7,2000, a indicatedthatthetrialcourthad [s]etahearingontheissueofCriminalContemptonthe17thday J ofNovember,2000.(Emphasisadded).Thefiatalsocontainedthelanguageindicatingthatthe 3 hearingpertainedtoacriminalchargeofcontemptagainstCorder: l 8  TotheClerkoftheCircuitCourt:...HavefurthernoticegiventoValerieCorder,  > Esquire,thatPetitioner,LeslieAnneRobinson,hasallegedthatValerieCorder, !'  Esquire,isincriminalcontemptofthepriorordersofthisCourt;thatPetitioner "!  intendstomeetherburdenofproofbyshowingbeyondareasonabledoubtthat #" ValerieCorder,Esquire,isnotrequiredtogiveevidenceagainstherselfandsheis  presumedinnocentuntilprovenguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.    (Emphasisadded).Thefiatsatisfiedmanyofthenoticerequirementsforahearingoncriminal k contemptsetforthinRule42(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.Moreover,Corders T attorneyturnedoverWifespsychologicalrecordstotheSpecialProsecutor.Therefore,the =  contemptproceedingscouldnothavebeenintendedtocoerceherintopurginghercontempt, & v becausetheallegedlyillgottenrecordswerenolongerinherpossession.Inotherwords,because  _ Cordernolongerhadthe keystothejail,Cordercontends,thesubsequentproceedingsagainsther  H canonlybecharacterizedascriminal.  1    Consideringallthecircumstances,wemustconcludethattheproceedingsagainstCorder   werepartiallycriminalandpartiallycivilinnature.Themotionforcontemptsanctionsfiledby   Wiferequestedsanctionsfor criminalcontempt.Consideringthe characterandpurposeofthe   motion,however,WifesoughtbothcivilandcriminalsanctionsagainstCorder.First,shesought n  thereturnofherpsychologicalrecords,whichthetrialcourthaddeterminedwerenotdiscoverable W  byHusband.Wifealsoaskedthetrialcourtto punishMs.Cordertothefullextentofthelaw,and @ tofindthatCorderwas inwillfulcontemptofthisHonorableCourtsorderofSeptember29,2000. )y ItisapparentthatthefiatissuedonNovember7,2000,wasintendedtosatisfymanyoftheRule b 42(b)noticerequirementsapplicabletocriminalcontemptproceedings.Thefactthatthecontempt K hearingcontinuedtoproceedafterCorderhadturnedoverthepsychologicalrecordsisfurther 4 indiciathattheproceedingswereatleastpartiallycriminalinnature,andwereintendedtovindicate  theauthorityofthecourtbypunishingCorder.Therefore,underallthecircumstances,wefindthat  thecontemptproceedingsinthiscasewerebothcivilandcriminalinnature.  # X Xo [## V#XoX XoXXXo  WenextaddresswhetherthecriminalcontemptportionofthechargeagainstCorderequates q toachargeforamisdemeanorforpurposesoftheexpungementstatute.Thisissueisoneoffirst Z impression.Inconstruingtheexpungementstatute,wemust ascertainandgiveeffecttothe C legislaturesintentwithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingastatutescoveragebeyonditsintended ,| scope. Owensv.State ,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995).Wemustapplythe naturaland e ordinarymeaningofthelanguageused...inthestatute,unlessanambiguityrequiresresort O elsewheretoascertainlegislativeintent. Browderv.Morris ,975S.W.2d308,311(Tenn.1998).  8   Asnotedabove,theexpungementstatutestatesthat [a]llpublicrecordsofapersonwhohas " ! beenchargedwithamisdemeanor...whichchargehasbeendismissed...shall,uponpetitionby #" thatperson...,beremovedanddestroyedwithoutcosttosuchperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.432 $# 101(a)(1).ItisundisputedthatthecontemptchargeagainstCorderwasdismissed,andthatshe w% $ requestedthatthetrialcourtexpungeitfromtherecord.Theissue,then,iswhetherCorderwas `&!%  chargedwithamisdemeanorwithinthemeaningofthestatute. I'"& #XoXX Xopk##XXoQk#  XoX   Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfoundthattheexpungementstatute doesnotapplytothistype )k$( ofacriminalcontemptproceedings.Wifearguesinsupportofthisholding,contendingthata *T%) chargeofcriminalcontemptandachargeofastatutorymisdemeanorarecriticallydifferent.She *=&* notesthatapersonchargedwithdirectcriminalcontempt,basedonactscommittedinthepresence +&'+ ofthecourt,maybesummarilypunishedbythecourtbeforewhomthedirectcontemptoccurs. See  Blackv.Blount ,938S.W.2d394,398(Tenn.1996).Wifeacknowledgesthatcriminalcontempt  isgenerallyregardedasacrime,butnotesthat [p]rosecutionsofcriminalcontemptarenotintended  topunishconductproscribedasharmfulbythegeneralcriminallaws.Rather,theyaredesignedto m servethelimitedpurposeofvindicatingtheauthorityofthecourt. Id. at402(quotationsomitted). V Furthermore,Wifeargues,privatecounselisnotautomaticallydisqualifiedfromprosecutinga @  criminalcontemptchargeonbehalfofhisclient,eventhoughaspecialprosecutorwasappointed ) y inthiscase. SeeWilsonv.Wilson ,984S.W.2d898,90304(Tenn.1998).Wifepointstoother  b differencesdistinguishing truecrimesfrom criminalcontempt,suchasthefactthattherewould  L benoassessmentofattorneysfeestoaprosecutorinacriminalmatter,whileattorneysfeesmay  5  beawardedinacriminalcontemptproceedinginlimitedcircumstances.        Corderarguesthat,underaplainreadingofthestatute,achargeofcriminalcontemptisa   chargeofamisdemeanor.Shepointsoutthatcriminalcontemptisamisdemeanorunderthe   definitioninTennesseeCodeAnnotated3911110,whichstatesthat [a]llviolationsofthelaw r  punishablebyfineorconfinementforlessthanone(1)year,orboth,aredenominated [  misdemeanors.Becausecriminalcontemptispunishablebyafineand/orimprisonmentforupto D tendays,Corderargues,thencriminalcontemptqualifiesasamisdemeanoroffense.Itfollows, -} then,thatshewas chargedwith[the]misdemeanorofcriminalcontempt,and,consequently,the f expungementstatuteapplies.Finally,Corderpointsoutthat,whileWifecontendsthatcriminal O contemptisnotthesameasanyothermisdemeanor,aconvictionofcriminalcontemptisconsidered 8 tobeamisdemeanorforpurposesofenhancingacriminaldefendantssentence. See Statev.Merlo , ! No.01C019611CC00471,1998WL74350,at*8(Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.Feb.23,1998)(noting   thatthedefendanthada misdemeanorconvictionforcontemptofcourt); Statev.Carroll ,No.  03CO19607CC00254,1997SL457490,at*4(Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.Aug.12,1997)(heldthat  itwaspropertoenhancethedefendantssentencebasedon oldmisdemeanorconvictions, w includingaconvictionforcontempt).#XoXX Xoq# XoXXXo# X Xor# XoX Ԁ#XoXX Xo@# XoXXXo# X Xo# XoX  ` # X Xo# XoX #XoXX Xoŀ# XoXXXo  Inconstruingtheexpungementstatute,wemustapplyitsplainlanguage unlessan 2 ambiguityrequiresresortelsewheretoascertainlegislativeintent. Browder ,975S.W.2dat311. k Theplainlanguageofthestatuteappliesto# X Xo^# XoX #XoXX Xo# XoXXXo [a]llpublicrecordsofapersonwhohasbeencharged  U withamisdemeanor.Tenn.CodeAnn4032101(a)(1).Criminalcontemptisconsideredtobe  > an ordinarycrime. SeeBagwell ,512U.S.at826( Criminalcontemptisacrimeintheordinary !'  sense,andcriminalpenaltiesmaynotbeimposedonsomeonewhohasnotbeenaffordedthe "! protectionsthattheConstitutionrequiresofsuchcriminalproceedings.(citationsandquotations #" omitted)); seealso  Black ,938S.W.2dat402(notingthatcriminalcontemptisgenerallyregarded $# asacrime).UnderTennesseestatutes,criminalcontemptisa violationofthelawpunishableby }% $ fineorconfinementforlessthanon(1)yearorbothand,thus,isindeedamisdemeanor. See Tenn. f&!% CodeAnn.3911110.Whiletherearedifferencesbetweencriminalcontemptandotherstatutory P'"& crimes,thosedifferencesdonotappeartoprecludetheapplicationoftheexpungementstatute. 9(#' Therefore,weconcludethatachargeofa misdemeanorintheexpungementstatuteincludesthe ")r$( contemptproceedingsinthiscase,insofarastheywerecriminalinnature.Accordingly,wemust  *[%)  reversethedecisionofthetrialcourt,andconcludethattheexpungementstatuteisapplicabletothe *D&* OY     criminalcontemptportionofthechargeagainstCorderinthiscase.Thecauseisremandedtothe  trialcourtforapplicationoftheexpungementstatute.#XoXX XoN# XoXXXo# X Xo # XoX    # X Xo# XoX #XoXX Xo# XoXXXo  ThetrialcourtisreversedandremandedforproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisOpinion. k Costsaretobetaxedtotheappellee,LeslieAnnRobinson,forwhichexecutionmayissue,if T necessary.# X XoX## #  XoX  ` #XoXX Xo##XXo#XoX    h      p      x  =      `     h     #XXo#XoX___________________________________      `     h     HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE#XXo#