Opinion ID: 1110278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Commission abused its discretion by hearing the complaint against Judge Lewis because it lacked jurisdiction.

Text: ¶ 8. Judge Lewis argues that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint against him under Rule 2 of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, Commission shall consider conduct of a judge or the physical or mental condition of a judge. In the absence of fraud, corrupt motive, or bad faith, the Commission shall not consider allegations against a judge for making findings of fact, reaching a legal conclusion, or applying the law as he understands it. Judge Lewis argued lack of jurisdiction at the hearing, but the Commission never responded to the motion. Judge Lewis asserts that his actions do not constitute fraud, corrupt motive or bad faith, as is required under Rule 2 of Miss. R. Jud. Perf. because he was simply interpreting the law as it applied to the case. ¶ 9. In response, the Commission argues that it does have jurisdiction because the complaint against Judge Lewis alleges bad faith. In Miss. Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929 (Miss. 1997), a circuit court judge was publicly reprimanded and fined $1,500 for releasing prisoners without authority. Russell argued that under his interpretation of statute, he did have the authority to release the prisoners. This Court found that the judge should have been aware that his actions were prohibited. A specific intent to use the powers of the judicial office to accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was beyond the legitimate exercise of his authority constitutes bad faith. Id. at 936-37 citing Miss. Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v. Milling, 651 So.2d 531, 538 (Miss.1995). ¶ 10. In light of this Court's decision in Russell finding bad faith in similar circumstances, we find that the Commission does have jurisdiction in this case.