The South Carolina Appellate Court has handed down a decision that upheld a circuit court judge's 2005 contempt ruling after a St. Matthews woman instructed the judge to kiss her derriere.

Judith Law will serve extra time in jail after losing an appeal on a 2005 contempt-of-court charge for offering the written instruction to a circuit court judge.

"Law argues the probation court erred by holding her in contempt," the Appellate Court decision reads, in part. "We disagree."

That disagreement by Appellate Court Judges Ralph Anderson, Paul Short and Bruce Williams means an extra 90 days in jail for Law.

Law's trouble with the law began about six years ago. On Nov. 1, 2001, she was arrested on charges of grand larceny and two counts of burglary. One of the latter charges was later dropped.

On Aug. 26, 2003, the then-46-year-old Law pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary and grand larceny and was sentenced to five years, suspended to time served on each count. She was also sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay $300 in restitution.

Fast forward to 2005 when Law is facing Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein in a probation-revocation hearing.

On Sept. 15, 2005, Law admitted to violating her probation resulting in Goodstein's having "re-instated her suspended five year sentence," according to the Appellate Court decision.

Law was then led from the courtroom, where she was instructed to sign a Form 9, or revocation order. Law signed the document "Kiss My Ass," the court decision states, before instructing a probation officer to return the document to Goodstein.

The document typically would have been placed in a defendant's file, not returned to the judge.

Upon receiving the form emblazoned with the instruction, Goodstein ordered a contempt hearing for later that same day. Not surprisingly, Law was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days to run consecutively to the five-year sentence.

The St. Matthews woman then appealed the contempt charge, arguing the record failed to indicate if the contemptuous conduct happened in the presence of the court or outside.

For the Appellate Court judges, that dog didn't hunt.

"No matter where Law signed the revocation order, her conduct was in the presence of the judge when she requested the revocation order be given the judge and the judge reviewed the revocation order after receiving it," the court wrote in its Dec. 14 decision. "Given the record before us, it was clearly within the probation court's discretion to hold Law in contempt of court."

You must be logged in to comment.