Title: Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 07-417 Re: Mary Jane Henderson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC09-1416
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 5, 2009

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-1416 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 07-417 RE: 
MARY JANE HENDERSON. 
 
[November 5, 2009] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a stipulation between the Judicial Qualifications 
Commission (“JQC”) and Judge Mary Jane Henderson, as well as the JQC’s 
findings and recommendation that Judge Henderson be publicly reprimanded for 
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, 
Fla. Const.  As explained in detail 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, on September 8, 2008, the JQC served a Notice of 
Investigation on Volusia County Judge Mary Jane Henderson pursuant to Rule 6b 
of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules.  The Notice of 
 
 
- 2 - 
Investigation stated in pertinent part that it had been alleged that Judge Henderson 
violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 5A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Among 
specific allegations being investigated were allegations that Judge Henderson had 
formed a relationship with Henry Wheeler, formerly a defendant in her court and a 
convicted felon with substance abuse problems.  The Notice of Investigation 
alleged that within the relationship or association, Judge Henderson had taken 
actions that undermined the integrity of her judicial office.  The conduct alleged to 
have undermined confidence in the judicial office included that Judge Henderson 
used her position to procure a lease of an apartment for Wheeler where the 
landlord would not otherwise have leased to him; held moneys for Wheeler; 
purchased a cell phone for Wheeler; loaned Wheeler money on occasion; and 
purchased a truck for him.   
The Notice of Investigation also stated that during Judge Henderson’s 
association with Wheeler, he came to Judge Henderson’s residence on April 26, 
2007, at 4:15 a.m. and caused a disturbance necessitating a call to 911, although 
Judge Henderson later advised law enforcement that an officer need not respond.  
The Notice of Investigation also cited allegations that Wheeler was allowed into 
Judge Henderson’s chambers on May 11, 2007, where he created a disturbance.  
After he was physically removed, Judge Henderson informed an officer from the 
New Smyrna Beach Police Department that she did not wish to give a statement.  
 
 
- 3 - 
Judge Henderson filed a written response to the Notice of Investigation on 
October 2, 2008.  On that same date, a hearing was held before the JQC 
Investigative Panel in Tampa, Florida, at which Judge Henderson appeared and 
presented testimony.  Ultimately, the JQC inquiry resulted in an August 5, 2009, 
stipulation between the JQC and Judge Henderson.  After the JQC and Judge 
Henderson entered into the stipulation, the Investigative Panel issued its Findings 
and Recommendation of Discipline, also dated August 5, 2009, and the panel 
waived a plenary hearing on the charges.  On August 6, 2009, the JQC filed a 
Notice of Formal Charges,1 the Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, and 
the stipulation in this Court.  We first examine the findings supporting the 
stipulation and the disciplinary recommendation. 
 
                                          
 
 
1.  The Notice of Formal Charges alleged violations of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct, namely: Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 2B, and Canon 5A.  The notice 
alleged in essence that Judge Henderson had a long-standing relationship with 
Henry Wheeler, and that as a result of the friendship, Judge Henderson took 
actions that undermined the integrity of her official office.  The notice alleged that 
Judge Henderson assisted Wheeler in finding an apartment in New Smyrna Beach, 
Florida, and that because of her judicial position and statements to the landlord, the 
apartment was rented to Wheeler.  The notice alleged that Judge Henderson held 
moneys for Wheeler, purchased a cell phone for him, and loaned him money for 
cab fares and to buy a vehicle.  The notice also detailed incidents that occurred 
when Wheeler was drunk and disorderly at Judge Henderson’s residence and in her 
chambers, and the fact that Judge Henderson advised police she did not wish to 
make a statement.  The JQC alleged that even after being warned by members of 
the clerk’s office that her conduct was impugning her judicial office, Judge 
Henderson failed to terminate her relationship with Wheeler.  
 
 
- 4 - 
B. Facts 
At the hearing before the Investigative Panel on October 2, 2008, Judge 
Henderson testified in pertinent part that after Wheeler no longer had any cases 
before her, she came to know him and his mother personally.  Based on the 
friendship that developed, and because she truly wanted to assist Wheeler to turn 
his life around, she agreed to act as his friend and mentor and to assist him in 
living a straight, sober, and productive lifestyle.  She assisted in finding him an 
apartment and met with the landlord, who recognized her as a judge.  Judge 
Henderson assured the landlord that there would be no problem with payment of 
the rent.  Although the landlord did not wish to do so, he did lease the apartment to 
Wheeler after meeting with Judge Henderson.  Judge Henderson also testified that 
she loaned Wheeler almost $4000 to buy a truck and believed he would pay her 
back based on their “handshake deal.”   She also purchased a cell phone for him 
and provided him money on several occasions to pay for cab fares.  Judge 
Henderson also agreed to hold Wheeler’s money on his behalf, requiring him to 
come to her to request the funds when he needed them.  
Judge Henderson also testified about the occasion when Wheeler came to 
her residence in the early morning hours of April 26, 2007, in an impaired and 
disorderly state.  She and her husband called 911 to report a trespass, but after 
Wheeler left, Judge Henderson advised law enforcement that help was no longer 
 
 
- 5 - 
needed and that she would not fill out a complaint affidavit.  Shortly after Wheeler 
left her residence, he was stopped and field-tested to determine if he was driving 
under the influence (DUI) but was not ultimately arrested for DUI.  Judge 
Henderson testified that she did not intend for her statements to police to suggest 
that Wheeler should not be arrested.  She also testified about the incident on May 
11, 2007, when Wheeler came to her residence during her lunch hour and engaged 
in a dispute with her, necessitating a call to her bailiff to transport her back to 
court.  The record established that on that same date, Wheeler later came to Judge 
Henderson’s chambers where he created a disturbance while drunk and disorderly, 
requiring that he be escorted from the courthouse.  When Wheeler was later 
arrested, Judge Henderson chose not to make a statement about the incident.  
Finally, at the hearing before the Investigative Panel, Judge Henderson showed 
remorse for her conduct.  She testified that she was “very sorry that my 
involvement with Mr. Wheeler and my attempt to fix his problems has led me to 
this situation.”  She further stated, “I truly apologize for the conduct on my part 
that people saw as demeaning to my office, and it’s not going to happen again.”    
The Findings and Recommendation of Discipline issued by JQC after the 
hearing stated in pertinent part that “Judge Henderson admits that her conduct, 
while well intentioned, created an appearance of impropriety in appearing to lend 
her judicial office to advance a private interest, thus demeaning the office.”  The 
 
 
- 6 - 
JQC further found that Judge Henderson’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 2B 
and 5A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The JQC also found that Judge 
Henderson “accepts full responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should 
not have occurred” and that she “now recognizes that the behavior was 
inappropriate and has undertaken steps to prevent their reoccurrence.”  Concluding 
that the judge’s conduct was misguided, although not ill-intentioned, the JQC 
recommended that this Court administer a public reprimand.   
C. The Stipulation 
 
After the hearing before the Investigative Panel, the JQC and Judge 
Henderson entered into a stipulation on August 5, 2009, in which Judge Henderson 
admitted that her “actions and inactions created the appearance of impropriety, 
thus conveying the impression that Mr. Wheeler was in a special position to 
influence the Judge.”  Judge Henderson further stipulated that “she failed to 
properly appreciate that her desire to assist Mr. Wheeler could have created that 
perception.”  In the stipulation, Judge Henderson accepted full responsibility for 
her conduct and expressed her regret over having become involved in attempting to 
help Mr. Wheeler.  The stipulation states that Judge Henderson has submitted to an 
independent examination and has agreed to continue appropriate mental health 
counseling and monitoring under a separate performance agreement that she has 
with the JQC.   
 
 
- 7 - 
 
The stipulation sets forth the relevant facts established at the investigative 
hearing, as testified to by Judge Henderson, and which are related above and in the 
Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, which is part of the stipulation.  
Finally, the JQC and Judge Henderson agreed that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline under the circumstances of this case.  We turn now to the 
proper scope of review in this case. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Scope of Review 
 
The Court may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC].”  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.2  
                                          
 
 
2.  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.  
Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 8 - 
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, as occurred here.  See Fla. Jud. Qual. 
Comm’n R. 6(j).3  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.  See 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 
                                          
 
 
3.  Rule 6(j) provides: 
 
(j)  The Investigative Panel may reach agreement with a judge on discipline 
or disability, and such stipulation shall be transmitted directly to the Supreme 
Court to accept, reject or modify in whole or in part. 
 
 
- 9 - 
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, 
842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 2003) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 
1994)); accord Angel, 867 So. 2d at 382-83. 
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 Henderson.  In its Findings and 
Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC found that Judge Henderson’s conduct 
violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 5A of the Code of Judicial Conduct in that it 
“created an appearance of impropriety in appearing to lend her judicial office to 
advance a private interest, thus demeaning the office.”  Thus, we turn to an 
examination of the requirements of the Canons of Judicial Conduct at issue here. 
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides in pertinent part: 
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. 
 
Therefore, even in private life, a judge must strive to enforce high standards of 
conduct by always personally observing those standards.  As the commentary to 
Canon 1 explains:  
 
 
- 10 - 
Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by 
the adherence of each judge to this responsibility.  Conversely, 
violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary 
and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. 
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1 cmt.  We conclude that clear and convincing 
evidence supports the JQC’s finding that Judge Henderson’s conduct violated 
Canon 1.  The evidence established that public confidence in Judge Henderson’s 
integrity was impaired by her actions and the actions of Wheeler arising out of her 
association with him.   
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.  
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A.  We have held that “[t]his provision is not 
an aspirational principle but a clear and unequivocal mandate.”  In re Maxwell, 994 
So. 2d 974, 978 (Fla. 2008).  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.  A judge must expect to be the subject of 
constant public scrutiny.  A judge must therefore accept restrictions 
on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the 
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. . . . 
 
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.  Thus, even in private life, a judge must 
accept restrictions, even on well-intentioned conduct, that are not imposed on the 
 
 
- 11 - 
ordinary citizen, in order to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of 
impropriety.   
Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid conduct 
that conveys the impression that others are in a special position to influence the 
judge.  “Moreover, a judge must not use the prestige of the judicial office to 
advance the private interests of the judge or others.”  In re Maloney, 916 So. 2d 
786, 788 (Fla. 2005).  Canon 2B states: 
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.  The record provides clear and convincing 
evidence that Judge Henderson’s conduct in relation to Wheeler conveyed the 
impression that he was in a special position to influence her; and by her conduct, 
she appeared to have used her judicial office to advance the private interests of 
Wheeler.   
The JQC also found that Judge Henderson violated Canon 5A of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct, which provides: 
 
Extrajudicial Activities in General.  A judge shall conduct all 
of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not: 
 
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act 
impartially as a judge; 
 
 
- 12 - 
(2) undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or 
impartiality; 
(3) demean the judicial office; 
(4) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; 
(5) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; or 
(6) appear to a reasonable person to be coercive. 
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 5A.  The finding of the JQC that Judge 
Henderson violated Canon 5A is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  Her 
association with Wheeler, and Wheeler’s actions within that association, demeaned 
Judge Henderson’s judicial office and interfered with the proper performance of 
her duties, as was evidenced by Wheeler’s disorderly conduct both at Judge 
Henderson’s residence and in her chambers.  Her acting as his proponent in the 
leasing of an apartment, where the landlord knew she was a judge, may have 
appeared coercive to the landlord under the circumstances, in violation of Canon 
5A.       
The JQC found that these foregoing Canons were violated and we conclude 
that this finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.   
Further, Judge Henderson has agreed by stipulation that her conduct, although well 
intentioned, resulted in violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 5A of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct.  Based on the testimony given by Judge Henderson before the 
JQC Investigative Panel, and by her stipulation, we conclude that the findings of 
the JQC are supported by clear and convincing evidence.  Thus, “the Court gives 
the findings persuasive force and great weight in considering the JQC’s 
 
 
- 13 - 
recommendation of discipline.”  Maloney, 916 So. 2d at 787-88.   We turn now to 
consideration of the recommendation that Judge Henderson receive a public 
reprimand. 
C. Recommended Discipline 
In the Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC concluded that 
Judge Henderson’s conduct was “misguided, [but] it was not ill intentioned.”  We 
agree with this assessment.  In her written response as well as her testimony before 
the Investigative Panel, and in the stipulation presented to this Court, Judge 
Henderson has shown remorse for her poor judgment and for her failure to 
recognize that her conduct created the perception that Wheeler was in a position of 
special influence.  She has also taken full responsibility for her actions and has 
expressed her understanding that her attempts to help Wheeler created the 
appearance of impropriety that impugned the integrity of her office and were 
completely counter to the Canons of Judicial Conduct.  Under the stipulation, 
Judge Henderson has agreed to continue appropriate mental health counseling and 
monitoring and has entered into a performance agreement with the JQC.  We agree 
with the JQC’s finding that “the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound 
judicial administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge 
Henderson.”  
 
 
- 14 - 
 
This discipline is in accord with our existing precedent in other cases 
involving the appearance of impropriety and impairment of public confidence in 
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  See, e.g., In re Adams, 932 So. 2d 
1025, 1028 (Fla. 2006) (public reprimand appropriate where county court judge 
had relationship with lawyer who practiced before him creating the impression that 
the personal relationship influenced his judgment, even though it did not); 
Maloney, 916 So. 2d at 788 (“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.”); In re Gridley, 417 So. 2d 950, 953 (Fla. 1982) 
(holding public reprimand warranted where the judge failed to act impartially when 
he injected himself and his office into a case by advocating for a defendant).   
For all these reasons, we find that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
sanction in this case. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, we approve of the stipulation and the JQC’s 
Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, recommending that Judge Henderson 
receive a public reprimand.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Henderson 
to appear before this Court for administration of a public reprimand at a time to be 
established by the Clerk of this Court.  
 
 
- 15 - 
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 
 
Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Henderson, Respondent