Opinion
90-498; CA A71608
Submitted on record and briefs March 26, 1992
Reversed and remanded with instructions May 13, 1992 Reconsideration denied June 17, 1992 Petition for review denied September 29, 1992 ( 314 Or. 391)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baker County.
J. Burdett Pratt, Judge pro tempore.
James R. Eccles, Baker City, filed the brief pro se.
Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Meg E. Kieran, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded with instructions to make appropriate findings and enter new judgment.
Defendant appeals a judgment of contempt. We reverse.
Oregon Laws 1991, chapter 14, sections 1-32, established new provisions governing contempt proceedings in Oregon. See ORS 33.015 to ORS 33.155. Because this case arose before the effective date of the new law, our decision is based on the old law.
On October 15, 1990, petitioner, defendant's ex-spouse, obtained a restraining order against defendant. On July 16, 1991, the state moved for an order requiring defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating that order. After a hearing, defendant was found in contempt, placed on 12 months probation and ordered to pay a $200 fine. Defendant contends that the judgment is defective, because it does not state the statutory grounds that support it or recite circumstances that justify a penalty in excess of a $100 fine. We agree. State ex rel Hixson v. Hixson, 199 Or. 574, 263 P.2d 603 (1953); State ex rel v. Bassett, 166 Or. 628, 113 P.2d 432; Pyle and Pyle, 111 Or. App. 184, 188, 826 P.2d 640 (1992); State ex rel Delisser v. Hardy, 89 Or. App. 508, 749 P.2d 1207 (1988).
Defendant's remaining assignments of error do not merit discussion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to make appropriate findings and to enter a new judgment.