Opinion ID: 2120247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Complaints Events

Text: On February 26, 2001, the Commissioners Court filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus against Judge Rose in district court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 34; Resp't Ex. R-62.) On February 28, 2001, the district court issued a writ of mandamus to Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 35; Exam'r Ex. E-40.) The writ ordered that ROSE, his employees, agents, representatives, and all persons under his direction and control ...: (a) Immediately deposit with the County Treasurer all ... fees ... and other obligations recovered in the name of the State not later than the next regular business day after the date that the money is collected. If it is not possible for ROSE to deposit the money with the County Treasurer by that date, then ROSE shall deposit the money in the County Treasury as soon as possible, but not later than the third regular business day after the day that the money is collected. (b) Deposit with the County Treasurer all fees, ... funds and other money belonging to the COUNTY on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If this deadline is not met, ROSE must deposit the funds without exception on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. (c) Provide immediate, unrestricted access to the Dallas County Auditor, her staff or designees to review any and all files in ROSE'S Court.... (Exam'r Ex. E-40, at 2-3 (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 35.) The writ warned, Failure to abide by the terms of this Writ of Mandamus shall submit the offender to possible contempt citation. (Exam'r Ex. E-40, at 5.) The writ also ordered: (e) The County Auditor, as a designee of this Court in furtherance of the Writ of Mandamus, shall be directed to review, process and direct posting of the approximately 1,000 cases that have been filed yet not disposed of by ROSE.... (f) The County Auditor as a designee of this Court i[n] furtherance of the Writ of Mandamus, shall forthwith direct and supervise all accounting, clerical and audit functions necessary to process and dispose of all backlogged cases within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus. (Exam'r Ex. E-40, at 3-4; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 35.) On February 28, 2001, the Dallas Morning News published an article concerning Judge Rose. See Todd Bensman, County Lawsuit Seeks Funds from JP, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Feb. 28, 2001, at 27A, LEXIS, NEWS Library, DALNWS File. The Commission investigated the circumstances in the article as an appearance of misconduct. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-26, at 6, # 6.) On March 1, 2001, the county created a special project team to process the court's case backlog. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 35; id. at 9, Find. 37.) The team removed a backlog of 20,373 citations issued as far back as 1998, on which the court had not performed any work. ( Id.; Exam'r Ex. E-46; II R.R. at 404.) The special project team relieved the court of the responsibility to enter those cases into the Justice of the Peace Accounting System; the court would only have to enter cases filed in March 2001 and thereafter. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 37.) Nonetheless, the court immediately began to accumulate a backlog of unprocessed citations. ( Id. ) On March 1, 2001, the Commission began its investigation into Judge Rose's conduct. On March 9, 2001, Judge Rose, blaming Freddie Brown for the court's problems, fired her. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 36.) On March 19, 2001, the Commission asked Judge Rose to respond to the complaints against him in writing. (Exam'r Ex. E-26.) On March 23, 2001, the court had 789 unreceipted checks and money orders totaling $117,710.40 on hand. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(q); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40.) The auditor requested that the court deposit them, but the court did not. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(q); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40.) On March 26, 2001, the auditor again requested that the court deposit the undeposited checks and money orders. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(q); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40.) On April 2, 2001, Judge Rose hired Belinda Brown as his chief clerk for the second time. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 38.) On April 6, 2001, Judge Rose responded to the Commission's inquiry. (Exam'r Ex. E-28.) Judge Rose stated, in response to the allegations in the Dallas Morning News article, I can now handle the workload and I can conduct the court in a lawful manner. ( Id. at 4.) On April 13, 2001, the court had 127 unreceipted checks and money orders totaling $21,109.86 on hand. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(q); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40.) In April and May 2001, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On June 11, 2001, the auditor addressed a memorandum to the District Attorney's Office concerning missing and misappropriated funds in the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-31.) The memorandum reported $11,157.74 in cash shortages. ( Id. at [1].) In June and July 2001, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On August 10, 2001, Judge Rose testified informally before the Commission. (Exam'r Ex. E-32.) Judge Rose testified that if a proposed justice court redistricting plan went into effect he intended to go to the house, that is, to take three years of pay without performing regular judicial services. ( Id. at 14, pp. 52-53; id. at 15, p. 55; id. at 20-21, pp. 77-78.) Judge Rose's salary is over $87,000 per year. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 10, Find. 44.) In August through November 2001, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) Beginning in December 2001, after justice court redistricting, Judge Rose's court has been designated as Justice of the Peace Precinct 1-a, Dallas County. (IV C.R. No. 58, at [2], Find. 2); see 74 TEX. JUD. COUNCIL & OFF. CT. ADMIN. TEX. JUD. SYS. ANN. REP. 347 (2002), available at http:// www.courts.state.tx.us/publicinfo/AR2002/jp/ redistricted.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2004). In December 2001, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On December 31, 2001, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning an audit of his court for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 and part of Fiscal Year 2001. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40; Exam'r Ex. E-33.) The memorandum reported numerous, continuing problems in receipting and depositing, and in other areas. ( Id. ) The auditor recommended: Monies collected should be deposited timely. V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. In addition, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. art. 103.004 further reduces the time frame to the third business day. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 6, Recommend. 1(p) (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 40.) The auditor also made some fifty other specific recommendations. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 6-10.) In January through April 2002, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On April 23, 2002, the auditor conducted a review of traffic citations in the court. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-34, at [1], Find. 3.) The court had 3,977 unprocessed traffic citations, primarily issued between May and July 2001. ( Id.; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 41; cf. id., Find. 37.) In April and May 2002, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On May 17, 2002, the Examiner filed the original Notice of Formal Proceedings against Judge Rose. ( See IV C.R. No. 1.) In June 2002, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On July 1, 2002, Judge Rose filed his Original Answer. ( See I C.R. No. 7.) Judge Rose entered a general denial, and specifically denied that he acted in bad faith or willfully. ( Id. at 1, 1-2.) In July and August 2002, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On August 22, 2002, the Supreme Court appointed a special master. [18] ( See I C.R. No. 12.) In September 2002, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On September 17, 2002, the Examiner filed the First Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings, the live pleading. ( See II C.R. No. 22.) The amended notice made six charges against Judge Rose: CHARGE I Rose failed to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court, which dereliction of duty involved far more than a thousand instances, occurred over a period covering more than five years, and resulted in litigation and negative media attention concerning Rose's conduct. Each and every such instance constitutes an instance of willful or persistent conduct in violation of the law or the Code of Judicial Conduct, willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, or willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; [ [19] ] or 3. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code.[ [20] ] CHARGE II Rose failed to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court, which dereliction of duty involved far more than a thousand instances, occurred over a period covering more than five years, and resulted in litigation and negative media attention concerning Rose's conduct. Each and every such instance constitutes an instance of incompetence in the performance of the duties of the office, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; or 3. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code. CHARGE III Rose failed to file the required reports, which dereliction of duty involved far more than a few instances, occurred over a period covering almost two years, and continued in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports. Each and every such instance constitutes an instance of willful or persistent conduct in violation of the law or the Code of Judicial Conduct, willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, or willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; or 3. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code. CHARGE IV Rose failed to file the required monthly reports, which dereliction of duty involved far more than a few instances, occurred over a period of almost two years, and continued in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports. Each and every such instance constitutes an instance of incompetence in the performance of the duties of the office, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; or 3. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code. CHARGE V Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court, considering the quantity and complexity of the business, involved approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Rose's court. Each and every such instance constitutes an instance of willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; 3. Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct;[ [21] ] or 4. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code. CHARGE VI Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court, considering the quantity and complexity of the business, involved approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Rose's court. Each and every such instance is an instance of incompetence in the performance of the duties of the office, in violation of the standards set forth in: 1. Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A. of the Texas Constitution; 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; 3. Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct; or 4. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code. (II C.R. No. 22, at 7-9.) On September 20, 2002, the auditor conducted a cash count and review of traffic citations in the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-34, at [1].) The count found unreceipted checks dated as early as August 29. ( Id., Find. 2.) The review also found 3,456 unprocessed traffic citations. ( Id., Find. 3.) On October 4, 2002, the special master called the evidentiary hearing by a telephone conference, but immediately continued it to November 12. [22] (R.R. (10/4/2002); IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 42.) On October 14, 2002, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning traffic citation and other review steps. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 41; Exam'r Ex. E-34.) The auditor reported on the September 20 cash count and review of traffic citations in the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-34, at [1].) The auditor also notified Judge Rose that, although the court reported that the chief clerk had been absent from work for six weeks, the county's time and attendance records showed her as having been absent only two weeks. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 9; Exam'r E-34, at [1], Find. 4.) The auditor recommended: Monies collected should be deposited timely. V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. In addition, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P., art. 103.004 further reduces the time frame to the third business day. (Exam'r Ex. E-34, at 2, Recommend. 1 (emphasis in orig.).) The auditor also recommended, Traffic citations should always be promptly posted to your system. ( Id., Recommend. 2.) The auditor also recommended, All vacation, sick leave, comp time and approved time off should be posted in accordance with county policy.... ( Id., Recommend. 3.) In October 2002, the court did not timely file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42.) On October 18, 2002, the court filed monthly activity reports for August and September 2002. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 42; see Exam'r Ex. E-35, at [18]-[19].) On November 8, 2002, the court filed seventeen monthly activity reports, for April 2001 through July 2002 and October 2002. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Finds. 39, 42; see Exam'r Ex. E-35, at [1]-[17].) On November 12, 2002, the evidentiary hearing before the special master continued. ( See I R.R.) The hearing concluded on November 21. ( See VIII id. ) In November and December 2002, the Examiner and Judge Rose, respectively, filed proposed findings of fact. (III C.R. Nos. 40, 43.) The Examiner's amended proposed findings of fact proposed eighty-six findings numbered 1 through 86. ( Id. No. 40.) Judge Rose proposed general findings numbered 1 through 12, and specific findings designated A through T. ( Id. No. 43.) The special master substantially adopted the findings of fact proposed by the parties. ( See id. No. 45.) The special master reported eight general findings of fact numbered 1 through 8. ( Id. at [1]-[2].) The special master also reported specific findings of fact in two series: he reported that Examiners for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and their Special Counsel established eighty-three facts numbered 1 through 83, ( id. at [2]-18), and reported that Judge Charles Rose and his attorney established facts designated A through R, ( id. at 18-28). In December 2002 and January 2003, the Examiner and Judge Rose, respectively, filed statements of objections to the special master's reported findings. (III R.R. No. 49; IV id. No. 52.) On February 13, 2003, the Commission held a hearing on the parties' statements of objections to the special master's reported findings. ( See R.R. (2/13/2003).) On April 24, 2003, the Commission issued its Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. (IV C.R. No. 58.) The Commission sustained the Examiner's objections to the special master's reported findings in part and overruled them in part, and sustained Judge Rose's objections in part and overruled them in part. ( See id. at [1]-[2].) The Commission adopt[ed] and affirm[ed] the Findings of Fact of the Special Master signed on December 10, 2002 as follows, with the previous rulings on the parties' Objections taken into consideration, and made forty-eight findings numbered 1 through 48. ( See id. at [2]-10.) The Commission's findings included several summary findings: 2. While acting in his capacity as Justice of the Peace, Judge Rose repeatedly failed to perform non-discretionary ministerial acts regarding the depositing, receipting and accounting of funds received by his office as required by State law, including Sections 113.021(a), 113.022, and 114.041(b) of the Texas Local Government Code.[ [23] ] 3. While acting in his capacity as Justice of the Peace, Judge Rose repeatedly failed to perform non-discretionary ministerial acts regarding the filing of reports as required by State Law and Dallas County, including Sections 111.065, 114.002, 114.003, 114.042, 114.043, and 114.044 of the Texas Local Government Code.[ [24] ] 4. While acting in his capacity as Justice of the Peace, Judge Rose on occasion failed to timely schedule and hear cases in accordance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. 5. During substantial periods of time, Judge Rose has allowed cases to be entered into the system at a pace so slow that enormous backlogs and congestion have occurred. For example, from January 1, 2002 thru [sic] April 30, 2002, despite a backlog of thousands of unentered cases, Judge Rose's staff of 3 persons entered cases at a rate of only 4 per day.... .... 7. For at least a decade, Judge Rose persistently failed to comply with requirements for receipting, depositing and accounting for funds, has persistently failed to comply with requirements for filing monthly activity reports, and has persistently failed to process new cases to keep up with intake. .... 46. Findings of Fact Nos. [enumerated] deal with failures to timely deposit moneys. They demonstrate thousands of instances of negligent, persistent and unjustifiable failure by Judge Rose to timely execute the business of the court, considering the quantity and complexity of the business. Those findings demonstrate persistent conduct, that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and willful conduct, and also persistent conduct, that casts public discredit on the judiciary and the administration of justice. 47. Findings of Fact Nos. [enumerated] deal with failures to timely file monthly activity reports. They demonstrate dozens of instances of negligent, persistent and unjustifiable failure by Judge Rose to timely execute the business of the court, considering the quantity and complexity of the business. Those findings demonstrate persistent conduct, that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and negligent conduct, and also persistent conduct, that casts public discredit on the judiciary and the administration of justice. 48. Findings of Fact Nos. [enumerated] deal with the backlog of case activity, including the failure timely to enter new cases into the Justice of the Peace Accounting System (JPAS). They demonstrate tens of thousands of instances of negligent, persistent and unjustifiable failure by Judge Rose to timely execute the business of the court, considering the quantity and complexity of the business. Those findings demonstrate persistent conduct, that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and persistent conduct, that casts public discredit on the judiciary and the administration of justice. (IV C.R. No. 58, at [2]-3, 10.) The Commission made the following twenty-seven conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS ON CHARGE I 1. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years was a willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years was willful conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years was willful conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 4. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years was willful conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, which provides, in pertinent part, A judge shall comply with the law ... (specifically, by failing to comply with Sections 113.021(a), 113.022, and 114.041(b) of the Texas Local Government Code). CONCLUSION ON CHARGE II Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. CONCLUSIONS ON CHARGE III 1. Judge Rose's failure to file required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports was a willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to file required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports was willful conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to file required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports was willful conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 4. Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports was willful conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, which provides, in pertinent part, A judge shall comply with the law ... (specifically, by failing to comply with Sections 111.065, 114.002, and 114.003, 114.042, 114.043, and 114.044 of the Texas Local Government Code). CONCLUSION ON CHARGE IV Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit monthly reports constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. CONCLUSIONS ON CHARGE V 1. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court was a willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court was willful conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court was willful conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 4. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court was willful conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(1), which provides, in pertinent part, A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate. CONCLUSION ON CHARGE VI Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. CONCLUSIONS ON PERSISTENT CONDUCT CHARGES I AND II 1. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years constitutes persistent conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years constitutes persistent conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years constitutes persistent conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, which provides, in pertinent part, A judge shall comply with the law ... (specifically, by failing to comply with Sections 113.021(a), 113.022, and 114.041(b) of the Texas Local Government Code). 4. Judge Rose's failure to timely and properly receipt, deposit, and account for monies received by the court in more than a thousand instances occurring over a period covering more than five years constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and further constitutes persistent conduct, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. CONCLUSIONS ON PERSISTENT CONDUCT CHARGES III AND IV 1. Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports constitutes persistent conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports constitutes persistent conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit the monthly reports constitutes persistent conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, which provides, in pertinent part, A judge shall comply with the law ... (specifically, by failing to comply with Sections 111.065, 114.002, and 114.003, 114.042, 114.043, and 114.044 of the Texas Local Government Code). 4. Judge Rose's failure to file the required reports in more than a few instances occurring over a period covering almost two years and continuing in spite of requests to submit monthly reports constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and further constitutes persistent conduct that violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. CONCLUSIONS ON PERSISTENT CONDUCT CHARGES V AND VI 1. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court constitutes persistent conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 2. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court constitutes persistent conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, and violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving approximately 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and further constitutes persistent conduct that violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. 3. Judge Rose's failure to timely execute the business of the court involving 22,000 instances of unprocessed citations and additional instances when litigants desiring adjudication were unable to promptly dispose of criminal matters pending against them in Judge Rose's court constitutes incompetence in performing the duties of office and further constitutes persistent conduct that violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. [sic] (IV C.R. No. 58, at 10-15.) The Commission recommended: 1. that the Supreme Court of Texas appoint a Review Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution; 2. that Judge Charles Rose, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1-A of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, be removed from office; and 3. that the Review Tribunal further issue an order, pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 1-a(9) of the Texas Constitution, prohibiting Judge Rose from holding judicial office in the future. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 15.) On May 6, 2003, Judge Rose filed his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing with the Commission. ( See IV C.R. No. 61.) On May 22, the Commission denied the motion. ( See id. No. 65.) On May 28, 2003, the Supreme Court appointed this Review Tribunal. (IV C.R. No. 66.) On June 9, 2003, the Commission filed its record with the Review Tribunal. Judge Rose has waived the time period for the Review Tribunal's decision. Judge Rose's term of office will expire on December 31, 2004. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 10, Find. 44.)