Case Title: Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 08-373 Re: Peter A. Bell

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC09-782

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-782 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 08-373 RE:  PETER A. BELL. 
 
[November 5, 2009] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court for review of the recommendation of the 
Investigative Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) that 
Judge Peter A. Bell, be publicly reprimanded.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
12, Fla. Const.  We approve the JQC‟s findings and recommended sanctions. 
FACTS 
The Investigative Panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) 
issued a notice of formal charges against County Judge Peter A. Bell, charging him 
with conduct alleged to violate Canons 1,1 2A,2 3B(1),3 and 3B(2)4 of the Code of 
                                          
 
 
1.  Canon 1 is titled, “A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence 
of the Judiciary” and provides: 
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to 
justice in our society.  A judge should participate in establishing, 
maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall 
 
 
- 2 - 
Judicial Conduct.5  The charges against Judge Bell stem from his actions on March 
14, 2008, while he was sitting as a county judge for Charlotte County, Florida.  On 
that date, a former husband appeared before him as a defendant in a domestic 
violence battery case.  After reading the probable cause affidavit, Judge Bell found 
that probable cause existed for the former husband‟s domestic battery charge.6  
                                                                                                                                        
personally observe those standards so that the integrity and 
independence of the judiciary may be preserved.  The provisions of 
this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective. 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1. 
 
2.  Canon 2 is titled, “A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance 
of Impropriety in all of the Judge‟s Activities.”  Subsection A provides: “A judge 
shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  Fla. 
Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A. 
 
3.  Canon 3 is titled, “A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office 
Impartially and Diligently.”  Subsection B(1) provides: “A judge shall hear and 
decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is 
required.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(1). 
 
4.  Canon 3B(2) provides: “A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain 
professional competence in it.  A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, 
public clamor, or fear of criticism.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(2). 
 
5.  In the Notice of Formal Charges, the JQC alleged that Judge Bell‟s 
actions “usurped the role of the State Attorney‟s Office and altered public 
documents to effect [his] decision.”  However, neither the Amended Findings and 
Recommendation of Discipline nor the Stipulation addressed the altering of public 
documents. 
6.  Charlotte County Deputy Sheriff Liborio Rivera, who was the law 
enforcement officer dispatched to the former wife‟s home, executed the probable 
cause affidavit.  The affidavit stated that Deputy Rivera had interviewed the 
 
 
- 3 - 
Moreover, Judge Bell found that the probable cause affidavit contained facts 
sufficient to establish probable cause that the former wife had also committed an 
act of domestic battery in attempting to force the former husband from her home.7  
Despite Deputy Rivera‟s findings and law enforcement‟s determination to arrest 
only the former husband, and in the absence of a complaint from the former 
husband, the Charlotte County Sheriff‟s Office, or the State Attorney‟s Office, 
Judge Bell ordered sua sponte for the former wife, who was present in court as a 
victim of domestic violence, to be taken into custody.  In accord with Judge Bell‟s 
order, the former wife was arrested, incarcerated overnight, and ordered to appear 
the next day for first appearance.   
 
At the JQC investigatory proceeding, Judge Bell explained his relationship 
with the former couple.  Judge Bell stated that he met the former husband, an 
attorney practicing criminal law, approximately fifteen years ago while they both 
worked as sole practitioners and before the former husband‟s marriage to the 
former wife.  During the marriage, the former couple attended the same church as 
                                                                                                                                        
defendant, the former wife, and their two minor children.  The affidavit further 
stated that the defendant was the primary aggressor based on the interviews, the 
injuries inflicted on the former wife, and the location of the incident.      
 
 
7.  Judge Bell came to this conclusion after doing about five minutes worth 
of research on his computer.  During that time, Judge Bell researched whether the 
former wife had a defense because the former husband was in her home and 
whether a battery had actually occurred.         
 
 
- 4 - 
Judge Bell and the judge would interact with them.  The judge‟s children also 
provided babysitting services for the former couple.  After the former couple were 
divorced, the former husband would come before Judge Bell in a professional 
setting, with Judge Bell reviewing his cases on a monthly basis.  Judge Bell had 
also spoken to the former wife at a social event.   
 
Judge Bell then explained the reasons behind his conduct, asserting that he 
had the former wife arrested because it was she who pushed the former husband 
first, thus transforming the argument from a verbal to a physical argument.  
Therefore, it appeared to the judge that the former wife was the primary aggressor 
and that the police officer had arrested the former husband for some other reason 
than his being the primary aggressor.  Judge Bell found that the facts in the 
probable cause affidavit did not support the officer‟s conclusion that the former 
husband was the primary aggressor.  It appeared to him that the officer had arrested 
the former husband because he was a male, and that the officer had exhibited bias 
towards the man and leniency toward the woman.  Thus, he found gender bias or 
some other inappropriate conduct on the part of the police officer.  Accordingly, 
Judge Bell stated that he believed he acted lawfully in his orders as to the former 
wife.  Yet Judge Bell admitted that he would not have had the former wife arrested 
or taken any other action if she had not been in the courtroom that day.  Judge Bell 
also acknowledged that his actions had the potential appearance of impropriety.    
 
 
- 5 - 
The JQC and Judge Bell reached an agreement and entered into a stipulation 
in which Judge Bell acknowledged that he violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(1), and 
3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  According to the stipulation, Judge Bell 
accepted full responsibility for the conduct and admitted that it should not have 
occurred and that his actions had the appearance of unfairness, which eroded the 
confidence of the public in the impartiality and integrity of the court system.  
Moreover, Judge Bell expressed his regret and apologies for such conduct and, in 
light of the Florida Canons, he acknowledged that “his understanding of the effect 
of his conduct was erroneous” and that he failed to properly appreciate the 
implementation of his duties as judge.  Additionally, Judge Bell denied that he 
intended to violate the applicable Canons and contended that he acted honestly and 
with a good faith belief that such conduct was appropriate.  Because the JQC 
concluded that Judge Bell‟s conduct was misguided but not ill-intentioned, it 
recommended a public reprimand.   
ANALYSIS 
Review of Findings 
 
In our previous reviews of JQC cases, we have explained:  
 
[W]e are authorized under the Florida Constitution to “accept, reject, 
or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the commission” and to “order that the justice or 
judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.”  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. 
Const.  “This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine if 
they are supported by clear and convincing evidence and reviews the 
 
 
- 6 - 
recommendation of discipline to determine whether it should be 
approved.”  In re Pando, 903 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla. 2005).  While the 
Court gives the JQC‟s findings and recommendations great weight, 
“the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination rests 
with this Court.”  In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994).  Thus, 
“we review the findings to ensure that there is „clear and convincing 
evidence‟ to support the alleged ethical violations” and determine 
whether to approve the recommendation of discipline.  In re Andrews, 
875 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 2004) (quoting In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77, 
85 (Fla. 2003)).   
 
In re Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 787 (Fla. 2005).  Moreover, “[i]n cases where a 
judge admits to wrongdoing and the JQC‟s findings are undisputed this Court will 
ordinarily conclude that the JQC‟s findings are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence.”  In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005).   
In the case before us, we accept the findings of the JQC.  Judge Bell has 
acknowledged that he violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(1), and 3B(2) of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct.  Our own independent review confirms that Canons 1 and 2A 
were violated when Judge Bell‟s actions resulted in the former wife‟s improper 
incarceration.  First, Judge Bell failed to “participate in establishing, maintaining, 
and enforcing high standards of conduct,” and to personally observe those 
standards so that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved.  Fla. Code of Jud. 
Conduct, Canon 1.  Second, Judge Bell failed to fulfill his duty to “respect and 
comply with the law and [to] act at all times in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  Fla. Code of Jud. 
Conduct, Canon 2A.  Instead, Judge Bell‟s noncompliance with the law and the 
 
 
- 7 - 
appearance of impropriety in his conduct impaired public confidence in the 
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.   
In addition, Judge Bell violated Canons 3B(1) and 3B(2) when he usurped 
the role of the State Attorney‟s Office by ordering sua sponte the arrest of the 
former wife.  Canon 3B(1) requires a judge to “hear and decide matters assigned to 
the judge,” while Canon 3B(2) requires a judge to “be faithful to the law and 
maintain professional competence in it.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canons 3B(1) 
and 3B(2).  In In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, J. Q. C. No. 77-16, 357 So. 2d 
172 (Fla. 1978), this Court noted the limits that every judge must observe in his or 
her administration of the law:   
Judges are required to follow the law and apply it fairly and 
objectively to all who appear before them.  No judge is permitted to 
substitute his concept of what the law ought to be for what the law 
actually is.  He may exercise his judicial discretion conservatively or 
liberally, and he may temper justice with mercy, but he may not deny 
justice to any person.  He may not withhold justice from one litigant 
in favor of another for whatever reason.  Every judge is answerable 
for excesses or abuse of his awesome power.  There is no place in our 
system for justice by whim or capricious notion.  
 
Id. at 179.  By engaging in the conduct outlined in the stipulation agreement, Judge 
Bell has failed to follow these directives.  As the JQC found, Judge Bell‟s conduct 
“resulted in the inappropriate incarceration of the victim of a domestic battery 
case.” 
 
 
- 8 - 
Based on our independent review of the stipulation and Judge Bell‟s 
acknowledgement of his wrongdoing, we conclude that there is clear and 
convincing evidence supporting the JQC‟s findings. 
Discipline 
Because we have concluded that the findings of the JQC are supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, we give the findings “persuasive force and great 
weight” in our consideration of the JQC‟s recommended discipline.  In re 
Maloney, 916 So. 2d at 787-88.  In its amended findings and recommendation, the 
JQC stated that “in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical 
administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge Bell.”  Judge 
Bell does not challenge the propriety of a public reprimand.  Considering the 
nature of Judge Bell‟s conduct, we approve the JQC‟s recommendation.   
Although the conduct in this case is one of first impression for this Court, 
the JQC‟s recommendation is appropriate when compared to the discipline in other 
cases involving a judge‟s (1) failure to observe high standards of conduct, (2) 
noncompliance with the law and appearance of impropriety that impaired public 
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, (3) failure to hear and 
decide matters assigned to the judge, or (4) failure to remain faithful to the law and 
maintain professional competence in it.  See In re Barnes, 2 So. 3d 166, 175 (Fla. 
2009) (approving public reprimand where judge filed petition for writ of 
 
 
- 9 - 
mandamus seeking to compel compliance with his view of proper pretrial release 
procedures); In re Allen, 998 So. 2d 557, 566 (Fla. 2008) (finding public reprimand 
appropriate discipline where judge issued a concurring opinion accusing a fellow 
appellate judge of judicial corruption based on unverified facts that were not in the 
record); In re Aleman, 995 So. 2d 395, 401 (Fla. 2008) (holding that judge‟s 
conduct of forcing defense counsel to prepare handwritten motion for 
disqualification of judge within a very short period of time and then threatening 
counsel with contempt in first-degree murder prosecution warranted public 
reprimand); In re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960, 961-62 (Fla. 1999) (concluding that a 
public reprimand was warranted where judge signed judicial documents relating to 
actions involving his daughter-in-law); In re Miller, 644 So. 2d 75, 79 (Fla. 1994) 
(finding public reprimand appropriate discipline where judge wrote letters to 
newspaper criticizing judicial system, gave mother notice of child custody hearing 
after hearing began, and forced mother to act as her own attorney in a case in 
which judge lacked jurisdiction); In re Gridley, 417 So. 2d 950, 955 (Fla. 1982) 
(approving public reprimand where judge personally injected himself and his 
office into a criminal matter as an advocate for the defendant).  Accordingly, we 
find that a public reprimand, as disciplinary action, is consistent with governing 
precedent and is an appropriate discipline. 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, we approve of the stipulation and the JQC‟s 
recommendation that Judge Bell receive a public reprimand.  Accordingly, we 
hereby command Judge Bell to appear before this Court for administration of a 
public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court. 
 
It is so ordered. 
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Miles A. McGrane, Chair, and Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Latour Rey Lafferty of Fowler White Boggs, P.A.,Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Bell, Respondent