1228, 143 L.Ed.2d at 326 n. 6, 330-31 (construing federal carjacking statute that imposed enhanced punishment when offense resulted in serious bodily injury or death as defining separate offenses with distinct elements to avoid “serious constitutional questions” under Due Process Clause and Sixth Amendment’s notice and jury trial guarantees). Here, the defendant was charged with scheduled violations, yet the State sought to have him sentenced to jail on the basis it had proved he committed nonscheduled simple misdemeanors. Because the defendant had no notice he was being charged with the greater offenses, he clearly did not have constitutionally sufficient notice of the charges against him. See In re Matter of Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122 (1968) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hibler, 5 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.1999)
holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail must be considered in determining what due process requires holding procedural due process requires that the charge must be known before the proceedings commence