Opinion ID: 1706910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: should jenkins be removed from judicial office and assessed the costs of this proceeding by the mississippi supreme court, pursuant to section 177a of the mississippi constitution of 1890, as amended?

Text: ¶ 23. This Court has recognized that the sanction should fit the offense. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929, 942 (Miss.1997). Sanctions available to this Court include removal from office, suspension, fine and public reprimand, or private reprimand. Russell, 691 So.2d at 942 ( citing Art. 6 § 177A, Miss. Const. (1890)). The sanction imposed should be consistent with other like cases and ought [to] fit the offense. In re Bailey, 541 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.1989). According to Section 177A and Rule 10 of the Rules of the Commission, the Commission recommends disciplinary sanctions and the Court, based upon a review of the entire record, determines the appropriate sanction. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Franklin, 704 So.2d 89, 93 (Miss.1997). As the Court stated in In re Quick, 553 So.2d 522, 527 (Miss.1989): In judicial misconduct proceedings, this Court is the trier of fact, and it has sole power to impose sanctions. Garner, 466 So.2d at 885; Collins, 524 So.2d at 556. Although this Court has an obligation to conduct an independent inquiry, it nonetheless gives great weight to the finding of the Commission, which has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Garner, supra, at 885; Collins, supra, at 556. See also Mississippi Judicial Performance Comm'n v. Walker, 565 So.2d 1117 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 24. Judge Jenkins has been the subject of judicial discipline on two previous occasions: one resulting in a private reprimand and the other in a public reprimand by this Court. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Jenkins, 677 So.2d 171 (Miss.1996). When considering the proper sanction to impose upon a judge the Commission may consider prior judicial misconduct on the part of that judge. See Franklin, 704 So.2d at 93-94 (1997). ¶ 25. Jenkins did not commit just a single isolated act of misconduct, but rather made a conscious decision to become involved in the practice of law and become financially and legally involved in a matter pending before him and continued to be so involved at least until the time of the hearing of the Commission. Jenkins knew or should have known that his involvement would bring his judicial office into disrepute. This involvement resulted in specific violations of the Constitution, and Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as statutory law which requires removal from office. As long as he remains in office, that office will remain in disrepute. Because of the gravity of his misconduct and extreme likelihood that even if other sanctions were imposed his office would remain in disrepute, removal from office is the only appropriate sanction. Furthermore, Jenkins should be assessed with all costs of this proceeding in the amount of $2,863.77.