Opinion ID: 1694106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether judge t.t. should receive a public reprimand, be assessed costs of this proceeding in the amount of $598.98, and/or become familiar with the requirements of in re bailey?

Text: ¶ 16. In Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.2004), this Court modified the Baker test, which determines whether a public or private reprimand is the appropriate action. Gibson stated: [W]e modify Baker to apply generally to the determination of all sanctions in judicial misconduct proceedings (rather than merely applying to the question of public reprimand) and examine the appropriateness of such sanctions based on the following factors: (1) The length and character of the judge's public service; (2) Whether there is any prior case law on point; (3) The magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; (4) Whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of conduct; (5) Whether moral turpitude was involved; and (6) The presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Id. ¶ 17. We now apply the Baker factors to the case at bar: (1) Length and character of public service  Testimony offered at the Commission hearing demonstrated that Judge T.T. had held the position of justice court judge for approximately five and half years. (2) Case law on point  While the Commission cited several instances where a public reprimand was issued for a judge who failed to abide by mandatory statutes there is no authority directly on point with this matter. [2] (3) Magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered  The full statutory fine of $2,000 was not satisfied until after the county prosecutor presented his personal check to the county. However, there is evidence in the record that had the minor defendant been transferred to youth court the maximum fine that could have been levied there would have been $500. [3] Judge T.T.'s mistake could have resulted in a monetary benefit to the county. Thus, the offense that occurred was not overwhelmingly critical, and did not result in an unconscionable result to any party in this matter. (4) Pattern of misconduct  The Commission brings to this Court's attention two previous complaints that have been filed against Judge T.T. for judicial misconduct. In the first complaint Judge T.T. agreed to be privately reprimanded by the Commission itself. The second complaint was dismissed by this Court. However, we find a pattern of legal errors is beginning to emerge. (5) Moral turpitude  Judge T.T. merely made a mistake of not remaining informed of the applicable law, therefore moral turpitude is not involved in this matter. [4] (6) Mitigating circumstances  The county prosecutor is an attorney, while Judge T.T. is not. Thus, when Judge T.T. was presented with the plea agreement, the court completely and blindly relied on the county prosecutor's judgment as a seasoned prosecutor. This was a mistake. Nevertheless, this Court considers the county prosecutor's recommendation a mitigating circumstance. Furthermore, Judge T.T. admitted that accepting the plea agreement was erroneous and a mistake. Judge T.T. recognized the misconduct and accepted that error was the result. Therefore, because Judge T.T. accepted responsibility for the actions, we find sanctions in this matter should be further mitigated.