Opinion ID: 1770888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: should a.l. brown be publicly reprimanded, fined $500 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: ¶ 16. Judge Brown argues that even if he is guilty of doing that with which the Commission has charged him, the recommended punishment, a public reprimand, a $500 fine, and costs, is not commensurate with what has been imposed on other judges. ¶ 17. The Commission argues that the sanctions recommended are consistent with similar cases brought before this Court. Public reprimands are serious sanctions and have been given to judges for such things as altering judgments after an ex parte communication, Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Underwood, 644 So.2d 458 (Miss.1994); for refusal by judge to allow a debtor to redeem property, In re Mullen, 530 So.2d 175 (Miss.1988); for utilizing criminal process to collect bad checks, In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge Odom, 444 So.2d 835 (Miss.1984); and failing to keep records and collecting court costs from county where cases never docketed, In re Lambert, 421 So.2d 1023 (Miss.1982). ¶ 18. The conduct engaged in by Judge Brown was serious and warrants sanctions. This Court has clearly stated several factors to be weighed in determining whether a judge should be publicly reprimanded: 1. The length and character of the judge's public service. 2. Positive contributions made by the judge to the courts and the community. 3. The lack of prior judicial precedent on the incident issues. 4. Commitment to fairness and innovative procedural form on the part of the judge. 5. The magnitude of the offense. 6. The number of persons affected. 7. Whether moral turpitude was involved. In re Baker, 535 So.2d at 54. ¶ 19. Applying these factors here, Judge Brown has served for nearly twenty years as a Justice Court Judge. The record does not otherwise reflect Judge Brown's public service or service to the community. Numerous Mississippi judges have been sanctioned for engaging in ex parte communications and for abuse of the judicial office. Judge Brown used his judicial position in an attempt to influence the outcome of his son's case. The number of people affected by Judge Brown's actions include another judge, law enforcement officers and the future of his own son. There was no evidence adduced regarding Judge Brown's positive contributions made to the courts and the community or Judge Brown's record to fairness and use of innovative procedural form. The only mitigation attempted by Judge Brown is an explanation that he was only acting as a father in doing what he did. ¶ 20. Based on our assessment of all of the factors, we conclude that a public reprimand is appropriate. In Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Justice Court Judge R.R., 732 So.2d 224, 234 (Miss.1999) [1] , we listed numerous occasions in which this Court has held a public reprimand was warranted by the facts of the case. Given the facts herein, a public reprimand is consistent with prior penalties issued by this Court in other cases of judicial misconduct. ¶ 21. The Commission also requested that Judge Brown be assessed for the costs. This Court recently held that an assessment of such costs is in keeping with precedent of this Court and is reasonable where `the complaining party is on notice that such costs are being sought and where the behavior of the complaining party is the reason for incurring of the costs.' Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. A Municipal Court Judge, 755 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Miss.1999)(quoting Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 724 So.2d 873, 874 (Miss. 1998)). The Judge was on notice that the Commission requested that costs be assessed against him. ¶ 22. In accordance with this Court's precedents, we assess costs of $407.75 against Judge Brown.