Opinion ID: 1591384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether judge cowart should be publicly reprimanded, suspended from office for a period of thirty days without pay, and assessed all costs as recommended by the commission?

Text: ¶ 18. The Commission recommended that Judge Cowart be publicly reprimanded, suspended from office for a period of thirty days without pay and, assessed all costs associated with this proceeding in the amount of $100.00. The Commission and Judge Cowart have signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation which was unanimously accepted and adopted by the Commission. ¶ 19. Imposing sanctions is left solely to the discretion of this Court. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Jones, 735 So.2d 385, 389 (Miss.1999). The sanction, however, ought to fit the offense at issue. Boykin, 763 So.2d at 876. There is precedent for a public reprimand, suspension from office for a period of thirty days without pay, and assessment of costs in Mississippi for similar actions taken by a judge. ¶ 20. Judge Cowart engaged in ex parte communications with litigants which is clearly prohibited by Canon 3B(7) and has been found to constitute misconduct in a multitude of cases. See Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 913 So.2d 266, 270 (Miss.2005); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So.2d 180, 198 (Miss.1996); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Chinn, 611 So.2d 849, 854 (Miss.1992). ¶ 21. In addition, Judge Cowart presided over a case after acknowledging a conflict existed. Canon 3(E)(1) requires judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances. . . . See Comments to Canon 3(E); In re Blake, 912 So.2d 907, 917 (Miss.2005). See also Canon 3(B)(1) (Judges must hear and decide all assigned matters within their jurisdiction except those in which disqualification is required.); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Martin, 921 So.2d 1258, 1266 (Miss.2005); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 918 So.2d 1247, 1253-54 (Miss. 2005); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Justice Court Judge S.S., 834 So.2d 31, 34 (Miss.2003). Here, Judge Cowart spoke with the affiant in a criminal case concerning alleged telephone harassment by the affiant's ex-husband. Judge Cowart informed the affiant that she would sign a restraining order. However, Judge Cowart declined to sign a warrant due to her relationship with the ex-husband's family and the fact she had engaged in ex parte communications with the affiant. Judge Cowart arranged to have the warrant executed by another justice court judge. However, when the case came on for trial, Judge Cowart did not recuse herself and instead dismissed the charges against the ex-husband. ¶ 22. Judge Cowart assisted others in avoiding prosecution for misdemeanor crimes by remanding cases to the file without requiring the parties to appear in court and without notification being issued to the arresting officer. She also assisted another litigant by contacting the arresting officer and requesting that he dismiss the tickets previously issued. Here, Judge Cowart telephoned the officer who issued the citations and requested that he pull the tickets. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 761 So.2d 182, 186 (Miss.2000), this Court publicly reprimanded Judge Brown, fined him $500.00 and assessed costs. Judge Brown made telephone calls to the officer, the officer's supervisor and the sitting judge in an attempt to influence a pending criminal case against his son. Id. at 183. See also Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Williams, 880 So.2d 343 (Miss.2004); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Warren, 791 So.2d 194 (Miss.2001); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss.2000); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bowen, 662 So.2d 551 (Miss.1995); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387 (Miss.1993). ¶ 23. Here, the record reflects that no fines were avoided by any of the three individuals ticketed by officers. As will be addressed more fully below, Judge Cowart improperly handled fine money on Varnado's behalf. However, the record reflects that Varnado's fine was paid and the clerk stated that no refund could be given because the funds for the fines had been received by the clerk's office and receipted. As for the tickets issued to Gascon and Miciello, the record indicates that when the issuing officer inquired as to the status of the above charges, Judge Cowart had the cases reactivated and placed on the docket for hearing. Since the charges were placed on the docket, there is no indication that any fines were avoided by these two individuals. Accordingly, the Commission did not ask for any fines to be imposed on Judge Cowart. ¶ 24. Also, Judge Cowart handled fine money. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. A Justice Court Judge, 580 So.2d 1259, 1262 (Miss.1991), the Court found it to be improper for a Justice Court Judge to handle fine monies pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 9-11-19 (Supp.1990). Though there is no evidence that Judge Cowart materially benefitted from the collection of fine money, as stated in A Justice Court Judge, it is easy for the misdemeanor offender who pays a fine to the justice court judge individually to get it into his head that the judge has a personal interest in the fine money. Id. Here, Judge Cowart paid the fine claiming that the money was from the defendant's father. After the fine money had been paid to the clerk and receipted, Judge Cowart continued to have the citations pulled and the funds refunded to the defendant's father. ¶ 25. In determining the appropriate sanction for each case before this Court, we review mitigating factors pursuant to this Court's holding in In re Baker, 535 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1988). In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.2004), this Court has modified Baker to apply generally to the determination of all sanctions in judicial misconduct proceedings rather than merely applying to the question of public reprimand. We now examine the appropriateness of sanctions here based on the following factors: (1) The length and character of the judge's public service. Judge Cowart has held her position since January 1997. Both the Commission and Judge Cowart acknowledged in their supplement that the record contains no information on the judge's public service. (2) Whether there is any prior case law on point. There is previous precedent as cited above for all the alleged violations committed by Judge Cowart. (3) The magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered. Engaging in ex parte communications, presiding over a case after acknowledging a conflict, remanding cases to the file without conducting any hearing or notifying the officers who issued the citations, contacting an arresting officer and requesting dismissal of an issued ticket, and handling fine money are prohibited and an abuse of power. These actions involved law enforcement officers, parties that appeared before the judge, parties that were scheduled to appear before the judge, and court staff. (4) Whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of conduct. The Commission and Judge Cowart acknowledged her disciplinary history and concluded that Judge Cowart had not evidenced a pattern of conduct at this time. However, the actions in this matter involved multiple incidents of misconduct. Judge Cowart had a prior informal admonishment. The prior infraction regarded an unrelated issue to the actions reviewed by this Court today. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 918 So.2d 1247, 1258 (Miss.2005), this Court found that the current disciplinary matter involved multiple offenses and Judge Brown had been previously disciplined for a similar offense, that being, improperly interfering with a case before the Justice Court. Therefore, Judge Brown has evidenced a pattern of improper and unethical behavior. Id. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Former Judge U.U., 875 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Miss. 2004), the Commission filed one complaint with this Court stemming from seven separate complaints by citizens. This Court held that the failure to render opinions and orders in six cases evidenced a pattern of neglect. Id. at 1095. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Miss.2004), Judge Gibson set aside a judgment imposed by another judge without a hearing or notice. This Court found that the record did not reflect other incidents of the same type of behavior which would evidence a pattern of conduct. Id. at 1158. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 913 So.2d 266, 272 (Miss.2005), this Court held that Judge Lewis evidenced a pattern of misconduct for prior and recurring ex parte communications. Judge Lewis had prior disciplinary actions that resulted in sanctions for ex parte communications. Id. These prior sanctions for ex parte communications and his failure to pay costs and failure to be reprimanded in open court for these matters coupled with the current allegations of ex parte communications evidenced a pattern of behavior. Id. Here, Judge Cowart's prior disciplinary action was unrelated to the current action before the Court. Pursuant to the above case law concerning a pattern of conduct, Judge Cowart's three incidents of ticket fixing evidences a pattern of behavior. (5) Whether moral turpitude was involved. In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Justice Court Judge T.T., 922 So.2d 781, 786 n. 4 (Miss.2006), this Court defined moral turpitude to mean it includes, but is not limited to, actions which involve interference with the administration of justice, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, or other such actions which bring the judiciary into disrepute. The Commission and Judge Cowart acknowledged that ticket fixing interferes with the administration of justice by way of the judicial process. Clearly, any actions that interfere with the administration of justice are considered by this Court to involve moral turpitude. (6) The presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances are present in this case. Judge Cowart had ex parte communications, presided over a case with a known conflict, requested an officer to dismiss a ticket, remanded cases to the file without notice to officers, and handled monetary fines. These actions adversely affected a multitude of individuals, such as court staff, law enforcement, and parties appearing before Judge Cowart. Mitigating circumstances are present in that Judge Cowart acknowledged her inappropriate conduct and took responsibility for her actions in her agreed order with the Commission. In addition, there was no allegation that Judge Cowart profited financially from the conduct with which she was charged by the Commission. ¶ 26. We uphold the Commission and Judge Cowart's joint agreement.