A direct contempt is one committed in the presence of the court. See Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). An indirect, or constructive contempt, is not committed in the presence of the court.

" ‘The scope of review on the issue of contempt "is limited to questions of law and, if there is any evidence to support its finding, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed." ’ [ Graham v. State, 427 So. 2d 998,] 1006 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1983)], citing Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)." Under Alabama precedent as it currently stands, the "any evidence" standard of review set forth in Ex parte Holland is applied in reviewing findings of criminal contempt occurring in a criminal case.

Charles Manufacturing Co. v. United Furniture Workers, 361 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Ala. 1978); Ex parte Abercrombie, 277 Ala. 479, 172 So.2d 43 (1965); Carroll v. State, 350 So.2d 723 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977). The sanction for civil contempt continues indefinitely until the contemnor performs as ordered. A critical distinction is that the sanction for criminal contempt is limited in Alabama district and circuit courts to a maximum fine of $100 and imprisonment not to exceed five days. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-11-30, § 12-12-6, and § 12-15-12; Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983). Direct or Indirect Contempt.

" [Graham v. State, 427 So. 2d 998,] 1006 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1983)], citing Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So, 2d 1047, 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).’

The trial court may punish summarily for a direct contempt because the personal knowledge of the trial judge, in whose presence the contemptuous conduct occurred, substitutes for evidence. Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). "The scope of review on the issue of contempt `is limited to questions of law and, if there is any evidence to support its finding, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed.'"

However, such punishment is discretionary with the trial court within those statutory limitations. Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). The trial court, in this instance, found the mother in contempt twice, and clearly ordered separate sanctions for two separate findings of contempt.

Such discussion is unnecessary after our holding in the prior issues. We hold that the power of the court to punish for criminal contempt, if properly prosecuted with due process, is limited in the circuit courts of Alabama to a maximum fine of $100 and imprisonment not to exceed five days. §§ 12-1-10, -11-30, Code of Alabama 1975; Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983). Peggy Brooks has already served more than five days in jail.

The threshold question in this cause is whether coram nobis is the proper remedy by which to seek review of Finn's contempt conviction. It should be noted initially that a number of cases in Alabama hold that the proper remedy with which to seek review of an "order made in proceeding for contempt of court is by habeas corpus if the contemner is in jail, or by writ of certiorari if he is not." Graham v. State, 427 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983) and cases cited therein. Further it has long been held by the courts of this state that the writ of error coram nobis is "not to be used as a substitute for appeal", it "does not lie to enable a defendant to question the merits of his case" and it is "not intended to provide appellate review where the defendant did not seek to review the matter on appeal."