Opinion ID: 1608349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether judge warren should be publicly reprimanded and fined $765.00 and all costs as recommended by the commission?

Text: ¶ 10. The Commission recommends that Judge Warren be publicly reprimanded, fined $765.00, and assessed all costs associated with this proceeding in the amount of $100.00. The Commission and Judge Warren have signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation which was unanimously accepted and adopted by the Commission. ¶ 11. Imposing sanctions is left solely to the discretion of this Court. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Jones, 735 So.2d 385, 389 (Miss.1999). The sanction, however, ought to fit the offense at issue. Boykin, 763 So.2d at 876. There is precedent for a public reprimand and fines in Mississippi for similar occurrences of ex parte communications and dismissing speeding tickets without conducting any hearing or notifying the officers who issued the citations. See, e.g., Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss. 2000); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bowen, 662 So.2d 551 (Miss.1995); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387 (Miss.1993). ¶ 12. In determining the appropriate sanction for each case before this Court mitigating factors are reviewed pursuant to this Court's holding in In re Baker, 535 So.2d 47 (Miss.1988). In determining whether a reprimand should be public, this Court considers mitigating factors which weigh in favor of confidential, private action. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Walker, 565 So.2d 1117, 1125 (Miss.1990). The factors from In re Baker, Walker, 565 So.2d at 1125 (citing In re Baker, 535 So.2d at 54) along with the evidence from the case sub judice, are: (1) The length and character of the judge's public service. The record contains no information on this factor. (2) Positive contributions made by the judge to the courts and the community. The record contains no information on this factor. (3) The lack of prior judicial precedent on the incident in issue. There is previous precedent as cited above in Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss.2000); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bowen, 662 So.2d 551 (Miss.1995); and Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387 (Miss.1993). (4) Commitment to fairness and innovative procedural form on the part of the judge. The record contains no information on this factor. (5) The magnitude of the offense. Ex parte communications and dismissing speeding tickets without conducing any hearing or notifying the officers who issued the citations such as the case herein, are prohibited. (6) The number of persons affected. Approximately ten defendants and court personnel were affected by these actions. (7) Whether moral turpitude was involved. Moral turpitude was not involved in the case before this Court. In addition, there was no allegation that Judge Warren profited financially from the conduct with which he was charged by the Commission.