Title: Inquiry Concerning A Judge

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-941 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 11-551 RE:  KATHRYN 
MAXINE NELSON. 
 
[July 12, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a stipulation between the Judicial Qualifications 
Commission (“JQC”) and Judge Kathryn Maxine Nelson, as well as the JQC’s 
findings and recommendation that Judge Nelson be publicly reprimanded for 
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, 
Fla. Const.  For the reasons we explain below, we accept the stipulation and 
approve the JQC’s findings and recommended sanction. 
I.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS 
A. Proceedings Before the JQC 
 
This action arose when a Notice of Investigation, dated January 27, 2012, 
was served on St. Lucie County Court Judge Kathryn Nelson pursuant to rule 6(b) 
 
 
- 2 - 
of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules.1  On March 8, 2012, a 
hearing was held before the JQC’s Investigative Panel in Orlando, Florida, at 
which Judge Nelson appeared and testified.  On May 9, 2012, the Investigative 
Panel filed a Notice of Formal Charges against Judge Nelson pursuant to rule 6(f) 
of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules and article V, section 
12(b) of the Florida Constitution.  The Notice of Formal Charges stated that the 
majority of the members of the Investigative Panel found probable cause existed to 
institute formal proceedings against Judge Nelson.   
Specifically, the Notice of Formal Charges alleged that on the evening of 
October 25, 2011, in Vero Beach, Florida, Judge Nelson was observed driving a 
vehicle erratically, weaving back and forth between lanes, striking a guardrail 
several times, and ultimately crashing on a bridge.  After initially identifying 
herself as a judge to the police officer at the scene, Judge Nelson explained to the 
officer that she lost control of the vehicle because she was talking on her cellular 
phone.  However, the officer smelled alcohol on Judge Nelson’s breath, and 
noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot.  Moreover, the officer observed 
that Judge Nelson’s clothes were in disarray.  At first, Judge Nelson was unable to 
tell the officer where she was coming from or where she was going, but she later 
recalled that she may have been at a restaurant.  Judge Nelson refused to exit the 
                                          
 
1.  The Notice of Investigation was not filed with this Court. 
 
 
- 3 - 
vehicle and refused to submit to field sobriety exercises.  Judge Nelson was taken 
to the county jail where she refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.  The Notice of 
Formal Charges stated that these acts, if they occurred as alleged, were in violation 
of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.   
B.  The Stipulation 
On April 30, 2012, the Investigative Panel of the JQC and Judge Nelson 
entered into a stipulation pursuant to rule 6(j) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications 
Commission Rules.2  The facts set forth in the stipulation are a reiteration of what 
was alleged in the Notice of Formal Charges, with two exceptions.3  The 
stipulation also states that Judge Nelson did not cause any personal injury or 
damage to the property of others, and that Judge Nelson entered into a guilty plea 
to driving under the influence and was sentenced pursuant to the mandatory 
provisions under Florida law.4   
                                          
 
2.  On May 9, 2012, the stipulation was filed with this Court. 
 
3.  The stipulation fails to state (1) that Judge Nelson initially identified 
herself as a judge to the officer, and (2) that she refused to exit the vehicle. 
 
4.  Upon an individual’s first conviction for driving under the influence, the 
trial court must order the revocation of the defendant’s driver’s license for a period 
of not less than 180 days or more than one year.  See § 322.28(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. 
(2011).  In addition, the trial court must:  fine the defendant not less than $500.00 
or more than $1,000.00, see § 316.193(2)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2011), place the 
defendant on probation for a period not to exceed one year, see § 316.193(6)(a), 
Fla. Stat. (2011), require the defendant to complete a substance abuse course, see § 
316.193(5), Fla. Stat. (2011), order the defendant to participate in public service or 
 
 
- 4 - 
The stipulation also expresses that Judge Nelson regrets and apologizes for 
her actions, and recognizes that her actions “have the effect of lessening the 
public’s confidence in the judiciary.”  Judge Nelson “accepts full responsibility for 
her actions that put her in violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct.”  Judge Nelson has taken steps to prevent any recurrences of such 
conduct.  Judge Nelson has sought counseling, which she agrees to continue.  
Judge Nelson has never been charged with any other driving under the influence 
offenses.  The stipulation also reveals that Judge Nelson does not contest the 
Findings and Recommendation of Discipline.5   
C.  The Findings and Recommendation of Discipline 
On May 9, 2012, the Investigative Panel of the JQC filed its Findings and 
Recommendation of Discipline with this Court.  The Investigative Panel finds that 
                                                                                                                                        
community work project for a minimum of fifty hours, see § 316.193(6)(a), Fla. 
Stat. (2011), and order the impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle that was 
“operated by or in the actual control of the defendant or any one vehicle registered 
in the defendant’s name” for ten days, see id.  The defendant also faces up to six 
months in jail.  See § 316.193(2)(a)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2011).  Penalties are increased if 
the defendant “causes or contributes to causing:  [d]amage to the property or 
person of another,” or “[s]erious bodily injury” or death of another.  See § 
316.193(3)(c)1.2.3., Fla. Stat. (2011).  The penalties are also enhanced if the 
defendant has a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.15 or higher, or if 
the defendant is “accompanied in the vehicle by a person under the age of 18 
years.”  See § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (2011). 
 
5.  Pursuant to the stipulation, Judge Nelson waived her right to a plenary 
hearing before the Hearing Panel of the JQC, and the parties waived oral argument 
before this Court. 
 
 
- 5 - 
violating the law by driving while under the influence violates Canons 1 and 2A of 
the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The JQC concludes that Judge Nelson’s conduct 
was an “isolated incident and does not demonstrate an unfitness for office.”  The 
JQC recommends that “in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound 
juridical administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge 
Nelson.”   
II.  ANALYSIS 
A.  Scope of Review 
 
This Court may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC]” and “order that the justice or 
judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.”  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.6  
                                          
 
6.  The Florida Constitution provides: 
 
 
(1) The supreme court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or 
in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [judicial 
qualifications] commission and it may order that the justice or judge 
be subjected to appropriate discipline, or be removed from office with 
termination of compensation for willful or persistent failure to 
perform judicial duties or for other conduct unbecoming a member of 
the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office, or be 
involuntarily retired for any permanent disability that seriously 
interferes with the performance of judicial duties.  Malafides, scienter 
or moral turpitude on the part of a justice or judge shall not be 
required for removal from office of a justice or judge whose conduct 
demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office.  After the filing of a 
formal proceeding and upon request of the investigative panel, the 
supreme court may suspend the justice or judge from office, with or 
without compensation, pending final determination of the inquiry. 
 
 
- 6 - 
Under rule 6(j) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules, the 
Investigative Panel may reach an agreement with a judge stipulating to the findings 
and recommendation as to discipline, and that stipulation shall be transmitted 
directly to the Supreme Court for review.  See Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n R. 6(j). 
When considering whether to approve a stipulation between the JQC and a judge, 
this Court will “consider both the terms of the stipulation and the findings of the 
JQC.”  In re Downey, 937 So. 2d 643, 649 (Fla. 2006). 
 
“This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine if they are 
supported by clear and convincing evidence and reviews the recommendation of 
discipline to determine whether it should be approved.”  In re Pando, 903 So. 2d 
902, 903 (Fla. 2005).  “In 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).  A judge’s admission of the misconduct and the impropriety of that 
conduct “bolster[s] the JQC’s findings, which we give great weight as we consider 
its recommendation of discipline.”  In re Angel, 867 So. 2d 379, 383 (Fla. 2004).  
Although we give the disciplinary recommendation of the JQC great weight, and 
we give full consideration to the provisions of the stipulation, “the ultimate power 
and responsibility in making a determination rests with this Court.”  In re Kinsey, 
                                                                                                                                        
Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 7 - 
842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 2003) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 
1994)). 
B.  The Findings of the JQC 
 
After a complete review of the record in this case, we conclude that there is 
clear and convincing evidence to support the JQC’s findings, and that the findings 
support the stipulation of the JQC and Judge Nelson.  In its Findings and 
Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC found that Judge Nelson’s conduct 
violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.   
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct 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 
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.  As the commentary to this Canon explains, 
“[p]ublic confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the 
adherence of each judge to this responsibility.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 
1 cmt.  Further, “violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the 
judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.”  Id.   
Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: 
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. 
 
 
- 8 - 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A.  The commentary to Canon 2A further 
explains: 
Irresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes public confidence 
in the judiciary.  A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance 
of impropriety. . . .  The prohibition against behaving with 
impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the 
professional and personal conduct of a judge. 
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A cmt.  In this case, the evidence established 
that on October 25, 2011, Judge Nelson crashed a vehicle she was driving after 
hitting a guardrail several times.  The officer on the scene smelled alcohol on 
Judge Nelson’s breath, and the officer noticed that Judge Nelson had glassy and 
bloodshot eyes.  Judge Nelson subsequently pled guilty to the charge of driving 
under the influence, a violation of Florida law.  Judge Nelson has admitted that her 
conduct “ha[s] the effect of lessening the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” and 
she does not contest the JQC’s findings that her conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  It is clear that on the evening of October 25, 
2011, Judge Nelson failed to “participate in establishing, maintaining, and 
enforcing high standards of conduct,” and personally observe those standards so 
that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved.  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, 
Canon 1.  In addition, Judge Nelson failed to fulfill her 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. 
 
 
- 9 - 
Conduct, Canon 2A.  Accordingly, we find that the stipulated facts support the 
JQC’s findings that Judge Nelson’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct.  Moreover, such findings are supported by clear and 
convincing evidence.   
C.  Recommended 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 786, 788 (Fla. 2005).  “[T]he object of disciplinary 
proceedings is not for the purpose of inflicting punishment, but rather to gauge a 
judge’s fitness to serve as an impartial judicial officer.”  In re McMillan, 797 So. 
2d 560, 571 (Fla. 2001).  Here, the JQC recommends that Judge Nelson be publicly 
reprimanded.  In its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC 
concluded that Judge Nelson’s conduct in driving while under the influence was an 
isolated incident and does not demonstrate an unfitness for office.  Judge Nelson 
recognizes the inappropriateness of her behavior, accepts full responsibility, and 
apologizes for her actions.  Judge Nelson has sought counseling and agrees to 
continue the counseling.  We agree with the JQC’s recommendation that “in the 
interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical administration will be 
 
 
- 10 - 
well served” by a public reprimand of Judge Nelson.  Judge Nelson does not 
contest this recommendation of discipline. 
We accept the JQC’s recommendation of a public reprimand for Judge 
Nelson.  Existing precedent suggests that her conduct warrants public reprimand.  
See, e.g., In re Esquiroz, 654 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1995) (approving public reprimand 
for a judge who pled nolo contendere to a driving under the influence charge, 
admitted violating canons 1 and 2A, and expressed remorse, and JQC found the 
incident isolated);  In re Gloeckner, 626 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1993) (approving a public 
reprimand for a judge charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, 
admitted such conduct violated canons 1 and 2A, and apologized for the incident). 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons expressed, we approve the findings and recommendation of 
the JQC.  We agree with the JQC and hold that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline in this case.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge 
Nelson 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. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.   
 
 
 
- 11 - 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Miles Ambrose McGrane, III, Chair, Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel, 
Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
For Petitioner 
 
Kathryn  Maxine Nelson, Fort Pierce, Florida