In re: The Lorice T. Wallace Revocable Trust Dated December 26, 1974, as Restated Effective October 5, 1993 and as Amended on February 12, 1998, The Lorice T. Wallace Irrevocable Trust Dated February 8, 1996, and The Lorice T. Wallace Irrevocable Trust Dated September 11, 1992, Also Known as the Lorice T. Wallace Life Insurance Trust, and the Lisa Frances Wallace Discretionary Spendthrift Trust; Stephen Paul Wallace v. Ronald Saffa and The Trust Company of Oklahoma

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed Stephen Paul Wallace’s conviction for indirect contempt arising from his violation of an injunction barring him from filing litigation related to several family trusts. The court rejected challenges concerning the facial validity of the confinement order, access to the courts, sufficiency of the evidence, the suspended sentence conditions, and waiver of the right to counsel. The court also declined to address collateral issues and other requested relief.

Holdings

1. The judgment and sentence was not facially invalid because it sufficiently described Wallace's contemptuous filing and the period during which he maintained the federal action, satisfying 21 O.S. 2001, § 568.
2. The injunction restricting Wallace from filing trust-related lawsuits in other courts was a lawful order and did not violate his constitutional right of access to the courts.
3. Wallace's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was without merit, and the conviction could not be overturned because he failed to provide the jury-trial transcript or otherwise affirmatively demonstrate error.
4. The district court had statutory authority to suspend part of the sentence on conditions requiring a mental-health examination, cooperation with the examination, and compliance with recommended treatment.
5. Wallace knowingly and intelligently waived appointed counsel, and the trial court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by refusing to allow hybrid representation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the judgment and sentence for indirect contempt was facially invalid because it did not adequately state the substance of the offense under 21 O.S. 2001, § 568.
2. Whether the injunction restricting Wallace's filing of trust-related lawsuits violated his constitutional right of access to the courts.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Wallace willfully disobeyed the injunction.
4. Whether the trial court had authority to suspend part of Wallace's contempt sentence conditioned on a mental-health examination and cooperation with recommended treatment.
5. Whether Wallace was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the trial court refused to permit hybrid representation.

Disposition

affirmed