Opinion ID: 1826525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the commission had proper jurisdiction.

Text: Judge Russell argues that the Commission did not have proper jurisdiction as required by Rule 2 of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and therefore could not impose sanctions upon him. Rule 2 specifically states In the absence of fraud, corrupt motive, or bad faith, the Commission shall not consider allegations against a judge for making findings of fact, reaching a legal conclusion, or applying the law as he understands it. In the case sub judice, the Commission stipulated that there were no allegations of fraud or corrupt motive and therefore proceeded upon the bad faith prong of the Rule. Judge Russell argues that the record contains no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, of bad faith. This Court has defined bad faith as [a] specific intent to use the powers of the judicial office to accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was beyond the legitimate exercises of his authority constitutes bad faith. Mississippi Com'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss. 1993) (emphasis added). Thus, the issue before this Court is whether Judge Russell knew or should have known that releasing four felons from the custody of MDOC was beyond the legitimate exercise of his authority. Judge Russell argues that at all relevant times he did not act in bad faith because he applied the law as he understood it. Moreover, Judge Russell argues if he had failed to act in these cases he would have violated Wigginton v. State, 668 So.2d 763 (Miss. 1996) or the federal constitutional rights of the prisoners. Despite Judge Russell's contentions, Wigginton had not been decided at the time Judge Russell entered orders releasing the prisoners and therefore, he could not have acted contrary to this Court's holding in that case. Moreover, at the time Judge Russell entered the orders in the case sub judice, prior decisions of this Court clearly held that a circuit judge has no authority to suspend a sentence after the defendant has begun serving the sentence. See Denton v. Maples, 394 So.2d 895, 898 (Miss. 1981); Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-33. Thus, Judge Russell should have been aware that he exceeded his authority when entering the orders in the four cases at issue. As a result, there is ample evidence of bad faith which would satisfy this Court's definition as set forth in Milling, 651 So.2d 531 (Miss. 1995). Onnie Calcote's complaint and letter described the actions of Judge Russell in regard to the Robert Parham case. Thus, the Commission was in receipt of a letter containing allegations that Judge Russell engaged in a course of conduct whereby he released felons after they had been convicted and sentenced to the Department of Corrections and after he had lost all jurisdiction. Because Mississippi law was clearly contrary, allegations of this nature were jurisdictionally sufficient to enable the Commission to proceed with an investigation. The Commission properly considered the allegations against Judge Russell. This issue is without merit.