Title: IN RE HON BEVERLEY NETTLES-NICKERSON

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Chief Justice:  
Justices: 
Clifford W. Taylor  
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Opinion 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED JUNE 13, 2008 
In re Honorable BEVERLEY 
NETTLES-NICKERSON, Judge, 30th 
Circuit Court. 
No. 133929 
_______________________________ 
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH 
MEMORANDUM OPINION. 
On June 11, 2008, the Court heard oral argument from the parties 
concerning the Judicial Tenure Commission’s findings and recommendations in 
this matter.  The Judicial Tenure Commission’s Decision and Recommendation 
for Order of Discipline is attached as an exhibit to this opinion. 
We adopt in part the recommendations made by the Judicial Tenure 
Commission and order that the respondent is removed from office, effective 
immediately, on the basis of the following misconduct: 
(1) 
Respondent twice made false statements under oath in 
connection with her divorce proceeding (Count I); 
(2) 
Respondent made and solicited other false statements 
while not under oath, including the submission of fabricated 
evidence to the Judicial Tenure Commission (Count II); 
(3) 
Respondent improperly listed cases on the no-progress 
docket (Count III); 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4) 
Respondent was absent excessively and engaged in 
belated commencement of proceedings, untimely adjournments, and 
improper docket management (Count IV); 
(5) 
Respondent allowed a social relationship to influence 
the release of a criminal defendant from probation (Count VI); and  
(6) 
Respondent recklessly flaunted her judicial office 
(Count IX). 
See page 2 of the Judicial Tenure Commission’s Decision and Recommendation 
for Order of Discipline in the attached exhibit. 
The respondent is no longer a judicial officer and will not be an incumbent 
at the time of the 2008 30th Circuit Court election.  We decline the Judicial Tenure 
Commission’s additional recommendation to conditionally suspend the 
respondent. 
On the basis of Counts I and II, costs are imposed on the respondent judge 
in the amount of $12,000.   
MCR 9.205(B). 
This judgment is effective immediately. 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
 
Marilyn Kelly 
 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman 
2  
  
    
   
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
  
 
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N  
SUPREME COURT  
In re Honorable BEVERLEY 
NETTLES-NICKERSON, Judge, 30th 
Circuit Court. 
No. 133929 
WEAVER, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
I concur in the majority’s decision and reasons for removing respondent 
Judge Beverley Nettles-Nickerson from her current position as judge of the 30th 
Circuit Court. 
I dissent from the majority’s decision to assess against the respondent any 
costs of the Judicial Tenure Commission proceeding.  As I stated previously in 
regard to the proposed assessment of costs against a respondent judge: 
[T]here is no constitutional authority to assess costs against a 
judge. Subsection 2 of Const 1963, art 6, § 30 provides that “the 
supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or 
remove a judge . . . .” As I stated in my concurrence in In re 
Noecker, 472 Mich 1, 18-19 (2005), “Nothing in this constitutional 
provision gives this Court any authority to discipline the judge by 
assessing the judge the costs of the Judicial Tenure Commission 
proceedings against him or her.” [In re Trudel, 477 Mich 1202, 
1203 (2006) (Weaver, J., concurring).] 
Further, as I stated in a subsequent order by a majority of this Court 
granting a default judgment against Judge Trudel: 
While under Const 1963, art 6, § 30(2) the Supreme Court 
also has the authority to “make rules implementing this section 
[concerning the Judicial Tenure Commission],” the Supreme Court 
cannot create Judicial Tenure Commission rules that authorize the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judicial Tenure Commission to recommend to the Supreme Court 
something that the Supreme Court does not have constitutional 
authority to do. The rule-making authority available to the Supreme 
Court is limited to making rules “implementing this section.”  And, 
because “this section” provides that “the supreme court may censure, 
suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge,” this Court 
only has the authority to make rules implementing the section in 
connection with the censure, suspension with or without salary, or 
retirement or removal of a judge. Assessment and collection of 
costs is not included in this authority to discipline a judge.  As the 
Supreme Court does not have authority to assess and collect costs 
granted to it by the Michigan Constitution, there is no corresponding 
rule-making authority to provide for the Judicial Tenure 
Commission to recommend to the Supreme Court the assessment 
and collection of costs against a respondent judge.  This Court may 
not delegate authority that it lacks in the first place. [In re Trudel, 
480 Mich 1213, 1214 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting).] 
Thus, the majority’s use of its unconstitutional, law-creating court rule 
authorizing the assessment of costs against disciplined judges is an unrestrained 
interpretation of Const 1963, art 6, § 30.  The majority of this Court should 
exercise judicial restraint in its interpretation of Const 1963, art 6, § 30 and leave 
it to the people of Michigan to decide, by constitutional amendment, if they want 
costs assessed against disciplined judges. 
Additionally, given the vast power vested in the executive director and the 
general counsel of the Judicial Tenure Commission, and given the possibility of 
due process violations against a respondent judge, it is becoming apparent that the 
rules concerning the operation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, created by this 
Court pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 30, should be reexamined by this Court and 
the people. 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
2  
EXHIBIT