v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 222, 849 P.2d 358, 365 (1993)). I think the Legislature attached to Section 31-3-9 a much more significant role than to be a substitute for contempt or bond revocation. Section 31-3-9 requires a more serious level of behavior, a more specific level of intent. A.The Contempt Power {56} Defendant’s tardiness made him subject to contempt sanctions. See NMSA 1978, § 34-1-2 (1851); Rule 5-902 NMRA 2001. The contempt power derives from common law and is an inherent power of the court. See State v. Clark, 56 N.M. 123, 125, 241 P.2d 328, 329 (1952); Purpura v. Purpura, 115 N.M. 80, 82, 847 P.2d 314, 316 (Ct.App.1993). A court may impose a criminal contempt sanction for violation of a court order. State v. Wisniewski, 103 N.M. 430, 435, 708 P.2d 1031, 1036 (1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Klempt, 1996—NMCA-004, ¶ 1, 121 N.M.
holding two district attorneys and two police officers in contempt for negligently failing to abide by discovery order in criminal case holding that suspension for fortyfive days with requirement of paying restitution of 47950 to client plus costs was appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorneys conduct relating to representation of client in divorce action in failing to act with diligence failing to keep client informed failing to adequately explain matters to client and failing to return unearned advancefee upon termination of representation and for attorneys conduct in failing to respond to two letters from office of bar counsel seeking explanation of inconsistencies in attorneys response to bar complaint holding corporation and its president in criminal contempt because previous order of civil contempt had not been purged holding that a contempt order labeled by the district court as civil was actually a criminal contempt because the order was retroactive seeking to penalize previous violations and was punitive serving no compensatory purpose holding that an attorney charged with contempt for failing to attend a scheduled hearing could be charged only with indirect not direct contempt because the contempt did not occur in open court and the judge did not have personal knowledge of the reasons for the attorneys nonappearance