Opinion ID: 1949231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Charge V:

Text: A defendant appeared before respondent for violation of probation based upon his failure to pay a fine and his arrest on unrelated charges. At the probation revocation hearing, respondent advised the defendant that his recent arrest on unrelated charges was the basis of the probation violation. The following exchange took place: JUDGE DAMRON: I am going to sentence you to six months in the county jail. What I am going to do is change that form  that this other, you know, the (inaudible) ... DEFENDANT: I don't see how you got  I don't see how my probation could be violated because  JUDGE DAMRON: James, you were charged again for a crime. It's on your probation papers. I didn't charge you for not paying your fine because you were in jail at that time. ..... DEFENDANT: So I'm going to get me six months for just being arrested. JUDGE DAMRON: That's what the state law says, if you don't like it, you should talk to your legislator. ..... DEFENDANT: One of them was one thing, and you're changing it to another. JUDGE DAMRON: I can change it. I'm the judge. DEFENDANT: All right. JUDGE DAMRON: I can reduce it to a lesser plea, I can change the statute, right now it's being done, that's why I done it in open court so a lot of people hear it. After protesting respondent's actions, the defendant requested the services of an attorney and the following exchange took place: DEFENDANT: There ain't no way this can be continued until someone gets here? JUDGE DAMRON: It's not going to help you any, James. You could have a dozen lawyers and you can't tell me you haven't been arrested. Can you? Respondent then continued the hearing without granting the defendant's request for an attorney. Respondent argues that he told the defendant that he was changing the basis for his probation violation from failure to pay the monthly installment on his fine to having been arrested for felonies. His authority was a provision of the probation order itself. He asserts that the portion of the record that says, I can reduce it to a lesser plea, should read, I can reduce it or change it to a lesser included. He further asserts that he gave the defendant an option to purge his six-month jail sentence by paying his fine and that the defendant's case was later reopened and the six-month sentence was reduced to 60 days. Respondent also notes that the defendant had previously waived counsel. Finally, he urges this Court to view his comment concerning a dozen lawyers as a gratuitous remark that, although unnecessary and unfortunate, does not justify his removal. The Commission concluded from the record that respondent intentionally threatened this defendant, in violation of Canons 2(A) and 3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.