[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gonzalez , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3259.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -3259
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . G ONZALEZ
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gonzalez , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3259.] Judges—Misconduct—Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct—Public reprimand. (No. 2020-0230—Submitted April 8, 2020—Decided June 11, 2020.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2019-059.

______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Judge Alfonso Jesus Gonzalez, of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071944, w as admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2000. On March 18, 2019, he was appoi nted to the bench of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. {¶ 2} In a November 7, 2019 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that during Gonzalez’s arrest for operating a vehicle w hile under theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 influence of alcohol (“OVI”) in July 2019, he failed to comply with the law and abused the prestige of his judici al office to advance his perso nal interests. {¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations and Gonzalez’s testimony at a hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, th e panel found that Gonzalez committed the charged misconduct and recommended that he be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the panel’s findings a nd
recommendation. {¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and publicly reprim and
Gonzalez for the misc onduct described below. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct {¶ 5} On July 21, 2019, at approximately 12:51 a.m., Gonzalez was stopped in Findlay by an Ohio Stat e Highway Patrol sergeant for a marked-lanes
violation and for failin g to signal when exiting the highway. {¶ 6} The sergeant approached Gonzalez’s vehicle, asked for his licen se and insurance information, and ex plained the reason for the sto p. He then asked Gonzalez why he was driving all over the road. Gonzalez stated that he was trying to get “home,” meaning his parents’ nearby residence. T he sergeant asked Gonzalez to step out of the vehi cle, checked him for weapons, a nd asked him to
sit in the front seat of the patrol cruiser. {¶ 7} Moments later, t he following conversation occurred:

[Gonzalez:] I’m going to tell you who I am. [Sergeant:] Alfonso Gonzalez. [Gonzalez:] Yes. [Sergeant:] Do I need to know more than that? [Gonzalez:] Well, yes, I mean, I hate to make this political, and I don’t want to go there, but I just got appointed judge in Lucas County by Governor DeWine in March.January Term, 2020

3 {¶ 8} Gonzalez explained that he had been out that evening celebratin g his first jury trial and stated, “I’m so embarrassed. I hate to pl ay; I’m not playing that card; I truly do not want to do that.” He then said, “Please, please. My parents
live about a mile down the roa d.” The sergeant responded, “I u nderstand, but I have a job to do.” Gonzalez st ated that he understood complete ly. But later, while still seated in the cruiser, he stated, “I’m not asking f or favors, I’m just saying it will kill me, really will. I just got appointed.” {¶ 9} Another trooper responded to the scene. He noted a strong odor of alcohol about Gonzalez’s person, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and droopy eyelids, and he observed that Gonzalez was slurring his words. Gonzalez explained to the trooper that he was trying to get to his parents’ house about a mile down the road and that he had been drinking with his brother-in-law nearby. He then stated, “Big mistake, I should have been in Lucas County. I’m a judge there. I’m not trying to play that up, but.” {¶ 10} The trooper conducted field sobriety tests and then arrested Gonzalez for OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). He rea d Gonzalez his
Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Gonzalez stated, “I’m going to lose my job * * * I’m a judge. I’m not telling you guys anything that you don’t know.” Gonzal ez then asked, “I can’t have my parents pick me up?” The trooper replied that th ey could pick him up at the patrol post, but Gonzalez continued, “No, before this .” Gonzalez then stated, “There’s nothing I can do, oh my God you guys are killi ng me, seriously, I just had a jury trial this week, I mean, I’m not asking for fav ors I’m just saying is there anything I can do?” The trooper told Gonzalez that he wo uld have to go to court. At the patrol post, Gonzalez refused to provide a chemi cal sample and was placed under an administrative li cense suspension pursuant to R .C. 4511.191.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 11} Three days after the traffic stop, Gonzalez self-reported his c onduct to relator, initiating this disciplinary process. He later sub mitted to a substanceabuse assessment. The psychologist who assessed Gonzalez opine d that he did not have a drinking problem, a nd she did not recommend that he participate in any substance-abuse treatment. {¶ 12} On August 29, 2019, Gonzalez pleaded guilty to one count of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) in the Findlay Municipal Court. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail with 23 days suspended and ordered to complete a driver’s-intervention program for five days of jail-time creditas well as a victimimpact-panel program for two days of jail-time credit. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $450 plus costs, and his operator’s license was suspe nded for 365 days, though he was granted limite d driving privileges. {¶ 13} At the time of his disciplinary hearing, Gonzalez had paid his fine and costs and completed all orde red programs. In this proceedi ng, he has admitted that he was trying to pe rsuade the troopers not to cit e him for OVI. {¶ 14} The parties stipulated and the board found that Gonzalez’s cond uct violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a judge to comply with the law) and 1.3 (prohibiting a judge from abusing the prestige of judicial offi ce to advance the personal or economic int erests of the judge). Stipulated Sanction {¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 16} No aggravating factors are present in this case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B). As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated an d the board found
that Gonzalez does not have a hist ory of prior discipline and h ad made full and
free disclosure to the board a nd exhibited a cooperative attitu de toward theJanuary Term, 2020

5 disciplinary proceedings, submitted evidence of his good charac ter and reputation, and had other sanctions imposed for his conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), and (6). {¶ 17} In accord with the parties’ recommendation, the board recommend s that we publicly reprimand G onzalez for his misconduct. {¶ 18} We have publicly reprimanded sitting jurists for driving while
under the influence of alcohol. See, e.g. , Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall , 143 Ohio St.3d 62, 2015-Ohio-1187, 34 N.E.3d 110; In re Complaint Against Resnick , 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-6800, 842 N.E.2d 31. We have als o publicly reprimanded sitting jurists for abusing the prestige of their o ffice by making repeated nonresponsive statements about being a judge after the y had been stopped for driving under the influence of alcohol. See, e.g. , Disciplinary Counsel v. Doherty , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-1422, __ N.E.3d ___; Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams , 152 Ohio St.3d 57, 2017-Ohio-9100, 92 N.E.3d
859. {¶ 19} After independently reviewing the record and relevant precedent , we agree that a public reprimand i s the appropriate sanction in this case.
Conclusion {¶ 20} Accordingly, Alfonso Jesus Gonzalez is publicly reprimanded for
the misconduct descri bed above. Costs are taxed to Gonzalez. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle R. Bowm an, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., and George D. Jonson, for respondent

.

_________________