specially concurring:
I concur with the majority’s holding vacating the 30-day imprisonment sentence. I differ, however, with the majority in several other respects.
The majority avoids upholding the 30-day sentence by finding insufficient proof of wilfulness for the criminal contempt and by finding sufficient purging for the civil contempt. I agree that the 30-day sentence should not be upheld, but I rest my decision on a different basis. I believe that wilfulness for the criminal contempt was established, but that since defendant already served 16 days in jail for the underlying charge, I would vacate the 30-day sentence after finding that sufficient punishment in relation to this case has been imposed.
Criminal contempt concerns the dignity and authority of the court. A party acts in disrespect of the court or its process. The act tends to bring the court into disrepute or to obstruct the administration of justice. (People v. Gholson (1952), 412 Ill. 294, 106 N.E.2d 333; People v. Redlich (1949), 402 Ill. 270, 83 N.E.2d 736.) In the present case, the court clearly and consistently indicated over a long period of time that it was singularly concerned with defendant’s disrespect of the judicial process, obstruction of the administration of justice through that process, and the manner in which defendant’s conduct reflected on the court’s dignity and authority.
Defendant testified at the violation of probation hearing that he did indeed have possession of the money on May 7, and again on May 13, 1985. The $5,200 consisted of a check made out to defendant, which came from an account belonging to defendant and his wife. He testified that he “physically got hold of the check.” When defendant discovered the bank had not received the $5,200 on May 7, 1985, instead of wiring the same amount, incredibly he sent “whatever money was available,” which turned out to be $610 and $800. The bank suggested he pay the $5,200 through the adult probation officer. Defendant did not do so “because at that time probation was *** non-reporting.” Moreover, defendant also decided after the probation hearing that he should not have to pay the bank the full $5,200, because the bank had since debited his account in the amount of $2,365. Thus, he did not pay the bank or the probation officer because he believed “the money was not well accounted for and since [the bank was] not willing to speak to me I was just waiting until I got to court.”
Defendant testified further that he never paid the $5,200 on or near May 8, 1985, because he needed the money for other things. He “did not have the money anymore because I had to pay some debts also from that money.” He had to make payments to the IRS, to his parents, and to a bank in Cincinnati.
This testimony refutes the majority’s holding that defendant’s misrepresentation at the plea hearing merely reflected a mistaken belief that his secretary had wired the money and that his conduct was not wilful. Indeed, these facts demonstrate that the trial court acted properly in finding defendant guilty of indirect criminal contempt.
Defendant’s actions both at the May 8 hearing and immediately thereafter constituted conduct which tends to bring the court into disrepute. It virtually ignored the court’s authority, the meaning of sworn testimony, and the purpose underlying the judicial process. Defendant’s decision to use the money for other purposes instead of making certain the bank received the money reflected directly on the court’s dignity and authority. Defendant permitted the court to become a party to a meaningless, artificial probation proceeding. In addition to the probation order entered on May 8, 1985, the continuing status of probation rested upon a sworn promise that the money was being transmitted to the bank, which promise defendant casually and flagrantly ignored, even though he had the funds to comply. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, constituted indirect criminal contempt of court. Moreover, these facts establish that the State proved wilfullness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nor did defendant’s eventual payment entitle him to be purged of that contempt. The record is clear that civil contempt is not involved. Civil contempt is a process to secure obedience to a judgment or to coerce a party into obeying a court order which incidentally benefits another party. (People ex rel. Scott v. Police Hall of Fame, Inc. (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 501, 387 N.E.2d 856; Eberle v. Greene (1966), 71 Ill. App. 2d 85, 217 N.E.2d 6.) The trial court, in finding defendant guilty of contempt, was not trying to secure obedience to a judgment or to coerce him to obey an order. The trial court found that defendant was “in indirect criminal contempt of court by [his] wilful refusal to comply and by making a wilful representation to this court.” The facts amply support the court’s finding.
Notwithstanding my belief that defendant was proved guilty of indirect criminal contempt, I agree with the majority that the 30-day sentence imposed should be vacated. I believe that the 16 days defendant has served in jail are sufficient punishment.