Title: Inquiry Concerning A Judge No. 03-78, Re: Dennis Maloney
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-22
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC04-22 
____________ 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 03-78, 
RE:  DENNIS MALONEY.    
 
[December 1, 2005] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We review the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, 
(JQC), that Judge Dennis Maloney be disciplined.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. 
V, § 12, Fla. Const.  We approve the JQC’s findings and recommended sanction. 
 
FACTS 
 
 
On January 15, 2004, the JQC formally charged Judge Maloney with 
conduct alleged to violate Canons 1, 2A, and 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  
The charges against Judge Maloney stem from his actions during the early morning 
hours of January 10, 2003.   
 
On January 10, 2003, an officer of the Lakeland Police Department, 
(Lakeland Police), arrested Travis Braddy for driving under the influence of 
alcohol, in violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2003).  Judge Maloney’s 
 
 
- 2 -
son was a passenger in Braddy’s vehicle, although the judge’s son was not charged 
with any violations.   
 
Judge Maloney had a close personal relationship with Braddy, having known 
Braddy and his father for approximately fifteen years.  The relationship was such 
that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned if Braddy were to 
appear before him in formal judicial proceedings.   
 
After picking up his son on the morning in question, Judge Maloney 
contacted the Lakeland Police and directed, over the objection of the Lakeland 
Police, that Braddy be released to the custody of his father.  Florida law provides 
that persons arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol may not be 
immediately released from custody.1  Notwithstanding the requirements of section 
                                          
 
1.  Section 316.193, which regulates driving under the influence, provides in 
pertinent part: 
 
 
(9) A person who is arrested for a violation of this section may 
not be released from custody: 
 
(a) Until the person is no longer under the influence of 
alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or 
any substance controlled under chapter 893 and affected to the extent 
that his or her normal faculties are impaired; 
 
(b) Until the person’s blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol 
level is less than 0.05; or 
 
(c) Until 8 hours have elapsed from the time the person was 
arrested.  
 
§ 316.193(9), Fla. Stat. (2003). 
 
 
- 3 -
316.193(9), and based solely upon Judge Maloney’s demands, the Lakeland Police 
released Braddy to his father on the morning in question. 
 
The JQC found that Judge Maloney’s actions violated Canon 1,2 Canon 2A,3 
and Canon 2B.4  The actions occurred at a time when Judge Maloney should have 
                                          
 
2.   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 
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. 
 
3.   Canon 2 is titled, “A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance 
of Impropriety in all of the Judge’s Activities,” and subsection (A) provides: 
 
 
 
A.  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. 
 
4.   Canon 2B provides: 
 
 
B.  A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other 
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.  A 
judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the 
private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or 
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special 
position to influence the judge.  A judge shall not testify voluntarily as 
a character witness.   
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2B. 
 
 
- 4 -
been circumspect to avoid any impropriety or the appearance of impropriety or any 
conduct which might erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of 
the judiciary.  Further, the JQC found that Judge Maloney’s actions impaired the 
confidence of the citizens of this state in the integrity of the judicial system and in 
him as a judge, constituted conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, and 
warranted discipline.  Judge Maloney and the JQC jointly waived a hearing and 
entered into a stipulation in which the judge admitted the allegations, 
acknowledged the violation of his duties under the Code of Judicial Conduct, and 
agreed that a public reprimand was the appropriate discipline in the case.   
 
ANALYSIS 
 
 
When the JQC presents a case for our review, we 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 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).  
 
 
- 5 -
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)).  Additionally, 
where the findings of the JQC are supported by clear and convincing evidence, the 
Court gives the findings persuasive force and great weight in considering the 
JQC’s recommendation of discipline.  See In re Holloway, 832 So. 2d 716, 726 
(Fla. 2002) (finding clear and convincing evidence to support finding that judge 
used the prestige of judicial office to request a scheduling favor for a family 
member from another judge, but insufficient evidence to support conclusion that 
judge abused her office based on single telephone call to a detective handling a 
criminal investigation involving a friend).  In this case, the parties have entered 
into a stipulation upon which the JQC’s findings are based.   
 
The JQC found that Judge Maloney’s conduct violated three separate 
Canons of the Code.  Canon 1 requires judges to “participate in establishing, 
maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct,” and to personally observe 
those high standards.  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.  Canon 
2A requires judges to “respect and comply with the law” and thereby promote 
 
 
- 6 -
“public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  The 
commentary explains that “[i]rresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes 
public confidence in the judiciary.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A cmt. 
Thus, a judge must avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.  
Canon 2B requires judges to not allow their family, social, political or other 
relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment.  Moreover, a judge 
must not use the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of 
the judge or others.  Accordingly, we find that the stipulated facts support the 
JQC’s finding that Judge Maloney’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 2B of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct. 
 
A public reprimand, as disciplinary action, is consistent with governing 
precedent regarding sanctions for judicial misconduct where a judge uses the 
prestige of judicial office to obtain favorable treatment for himself or another 
individual.  See In re Richardson, 760 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2000) (finding public 
reprimand appropriate discipline where judge used prestige of office and made 
inappropriate comments to police which were designed to obtain favored treatment 
for judge after he was brought to police station); In re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960, 961-
62 (Fla. 1999) (approving public reprimand for a judge who issued warrants for the 
arrest of his former daughter-in-law based on her harassing communications to and 
stalking of the judge’s son); In re Fogan, 646 So. 2d 191, 193-94 (Fla. 1994) 
 
 
- 7 -
(concluding that writing character reference letter on official court stationery for 
personal friend who was to be sentenced in federal court warranted public 
reprimand); In re Glickstein, 620 So. 2d 1000, 1002-03 (Fla. 1993) (approving 
public reprimand of judge for writing letter on official court stationery endorsing 
fellow member of judiciary for retention in office).  Moreover, this Court has 
established the policy that a jurist whose conduct is egregious enough to require 
public reprimand must appear before the Court for administration of the reprimand.  
See In re Frank, 753 So. 2d 1228, 1242 (Fla. 2000). 
 
 
In recommending a public reprimand as a suitable penalty, the JQC took into 
account various mitigating circumstances.  Judge Maloney has no prior 
disciplinary history in his twenty-seven-year career on the bench.  He is generally 
regarded as a fair, impartial, and competent jurist.  Further, the JQC considered 
Judge Maloney’s candor before the Investigative Panel and that he testified under 
oath that he was unaware that his conduct in ordering law enforcement officials to 
release a DUI suspect from custody constituted a violation of state law.    
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons expressed, we approve the findings and recommendation of 
the JQC.  Further, we agree with the JQC and hold that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline in this case.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge 
 
 
- 8 -
Maloney 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.        
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualification Commission 
 
Richard C. McFarlain, Chair, Tallahassee, Florida, and Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., 
General Counsel, and Lansing C. Scriven, Special Counsel, Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner, 
 
Robin Gibson of Gibson, Valenti & Ashley, P.A., Lake Wales, Florida, 
 
 
for Dennis Maloney, Respondent