Opinion ID: 1721155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Charge Twenty-One

Text: 67. William P. Powers, a Circuit Judge of the Twenty-Ninth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, is mentally unable to perform his duties as a circuit judge, within the meaning of sections 6.17(b)(2) and 6.18(a)(2) of Amendment No. 328 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901. That wording did not prohibit the C.O.J. from exercising its authority under Ala. Const. 1901, amend. 328, § 6.18(a)(2), to retire Powers if it found him permanently mentally disabled. The wording of the charge in the present tense was proper. It would have made no sense to allege that Powers had been mentally disabled in the past. Although the complaint could have been drawn to allege that Powers was presently disabled, and that his disability was expected to continue in the future, such an allegation was unnecessary. The allegation of Powers's having a present mental disability does not logically preclude or restrict the C.O.J. from determining the permanency aspect of his disability. Indeed, the extensive evidence presented on the issue of the permanency of Powers's condition, coupled with the question propounded from the bench by the C.O.J., leads us to conclude that the C.O.J. clearly understood it could find Powers to be permanently disabled if the evidence presented led to that conclusion. Powers insists that the C.O.J.'s judgment, itself, established that it failed to consider the issue of whether his disability is permanent. Powers cites the fact that the judgment made reference to the parties' stipulations and Powers's admission to count six ( supra ). Powers's argument is based on the assumption that the C.O.J. considered only those motions. We do not find that to be a fair reading of the C.O.J.'s judgment. Powers's argument, therefore, is not well taken. Next, Powers argues that the evidence showed undisputedly that the matters complained of by the J.I.C. were the product of his mental disability, and were not the result of wilful violation of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. He concludes, therefore, that the C.O.J. should have retired him instead of censuring and suspending him from office. We have already dealt with the retirement issue. The issue of the C.O.J.'s censuring of Powers, we now address. Again, Powers's characterization of the evidence does not support his theory. We cannot agree that all of Powers's allegedly improper acts can be attributed to his mental disability. There is evidence in the record to support a finding that Powers intentionally delayed rendering a decision on a case under submission to him because he had a personal animosity against one of the attorneys of record. That animosity allegedly arose because the attorney had talked to Powers's wife about their divorce. Under the evidence adduced at trial, the C.O.J. could find that act of Powers's to have been intentional and worthy of censure. For that reason, and others, we find no error in the C.O.J.'s censuring of Powers. In conclusion, we note that the parties have raised other issues and points of law. Some of these have been pretermitted by our above discussion. Others, not logically pretermitted and not discussed, have been carefully considered, but found to be without merit. We affirm the judgment of the C.O.J., and we dismiss Powers's appeal under § 12-18-2 from the decision of the Board. Case No. 81-12APPEAL DISMISSED. Case No. 81-14AFFIRMED. MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur. FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., dissent. TORBERT, C.J., recuses himself.