Opinion ID: 2496374
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Judge McKenzie's misconduct warrants a public reprimand, a thirty-day suspension from office without pay, a $500 fine, and assessment of costs in the amount of $100.

Text: ¶ 11. This Court considers six factors in determining proper sanctions for judicial misconduct: (1) the length and character of the judge's public service; (2) whether there is any prior caselaw on point; (3) the magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; (4) whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of misconduct; (5) whether moral turpitude was involved; and (6) the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.2004), overruled in part on other grounds by Boone, 60 So.3d at 174-75.
¶ 12. Judge McKenzie has been a justice court judge for fifteen years. Prior to that, he served as a deputy sheriff for twelve years. The record is silent regarding the character of his public service.
¶ 13. The Commission cites Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss.2000), and Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Warren, 791 So.2d 194 (Miss. 2001), as comparable cases. In Boykin, this Court imposed a public reprimand and a fine for a justice court judge who improperly had dismissed eleven tickets based upon ex parte communications. Boykin, 763 So.2d at 874, 876. In Warren, this Court ordered a public reprimand and a fine on a justice court judge who had engaged in ex parte communications and had dismissed approximately ten speeding tickets without notice to the citing officer or a hearing. Warren, 791 So.2d at 196-99. ¶ 14. The Commission also cites Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209 (Miss.2006), and Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gordon, 955 So.2d 300 (Miss.2007), but it finds that Judge McKenzie's actions were not as egregious as the misconduct in those cases. ¶ 15. In Sanford, Gordon, and, more recently, in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Bradford, 18 So.3d 251 (Miss.2009), this Court imposed suspensions for egregious misconduct that involved moral turpitude arising out of what is referred to as ticket-fixing. Sanford, 941 So.2d at 216-18; Gordon, 955 So.2d at 305-06; Bradford, 18 So.3d at 256-57. ¶ 16. In Sanford, a justice court judge arranged for the arresting officer in a driving-under-the-influence case not to appear at trial so the judge could dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Sanford, 941 So.2d at 210, 218. The Commission recommended a public reprimand and assessment of costs. Id. at 215. This Court, however, believed that a harsher sanction was warranted. Id. at 218. Thus, a thirty-day suspension was added. Id. ¶ 17. In Gordon, a municipal court judge approached an officer and told him that several local residents were upset about a number of speeding tickets that the officer had issued. Gordon, 955 So.2d at 302. The judge then informed the officer that he intended to pass those tickets to the files. Id. Despite the officer's objections, fourteen defendants were advised not to appear in court because their tickets had been passed to the files. Id. The Commission recommended that the judge be publicly reprimanded and assessed all costs. Id. at 304. But this Court, citing Sanford as support, found that the judge's conduct was egregious and, therefore, a thirty-day suspension was appropriate as well. Id. at 306. We noted that we had not always required a suspension for such conduct. Id. Yet Sanford, we stated, had marked a shift. Id. (citing Sanford, 941 So.2d at 209). As a result, conduct akin to that in Gordon warranted a more severe penalty, including a suspension. Gordon, 955 So.2d at 306. ¶ 18. The justice court judge in Bradford committed numerous violations: two counts of ex parte communications, five counts of improperly dismissing or disposing of charges, two counts of violating Rule 2.06 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Justice Court, and improperly ordering the issuance of two contempt warrants. Bradford, 18 So.3d at 254. And, similar to the case before us, the justice court judge in Bradford tried to interfere with two traffic citations that had been assigned to another justice court judge. Id. at 253. The Commission recommended a public reprimand, thirty-day suspension without pay, and assessment of costs. Id. at 254. We adopted its recommendation. Id. at 258. Notably, we discussed harsher sanctions, but found no case in which a judge making a first appearance before the Commission and this Court, for whom the Commission recommended a suspension from office, in which this Court imposed a longer suspension from office and a fine greater than that resulting from the direct costs of the judge's misbehavior. Id. at 257-58. Two justices, however, would have imposed an even harsher sanction. Id. at 259-63 (Randolph, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
¶ 19. Judge McKenzie violated multiple canons and the Mississippi Constitution. That alone indicates the seriousness of his misconduct. Id. at 305. Judge McKenzie's actions interfered with the administration of justice and brought the judicial office into disrepute. By involving himself in another judge's cases and attempting to assist defendants with their tickets, Judge McKenzie compromised the integrity and independence of the judiciary. These actions created an impression that certain defendants were in a special position to influence him. Id. His actions also deprived the State of a fair opportunity to exercise its legitimate interest in punishing offenders of its laws. Id. ¶ 20. We have noted in the past that it is particularly important for justice court judges to `regard scrupulously the nature of their office.' Sanford, 941 So.2d at 215 (quoting In re Bailey, 541 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.1989)). Our citizenry's overall perception of the entire judicial system in this state is quite often a result of contact with our justice courts, since the vast majority of our citizens will have little or no contact with our state trial or appellate courts, other than for jury service. Id. at 218 (citing In re Bailey, 541 So.2d at 1039).
¶ 21. The Commission states that Judge McKenzie has been the subject of one informal action. The Commission offers no further details, other than to say that the conduct in the informal action was unrelated to this case. ¶ 22. Though Judge McKenzie does not have a disciplinary history with the Commission, this Court has found that a pattern of misconduct exists where a single disciplinary action comprises multiple offenses. Bradford, 18 So.3d at 256. As few as three incidents of misconduct constitute a pattern of behavior. Id. (citing Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Cowart, 936 So.2d 343, 350 (Miss.2006)). The nine incidents here thus constitute a pattern of conduct.
¶ 23. The Commission and Judge McKenzie agree that his actions involved moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes `actions which involve interference with the administration of justice, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, or other such actions which bring the judiciary into disrepute.' Gordon, 955 So.2d at 305 (quoting Gibson, 883 So.2d at 1158 n. 2). Ticket-fixing willfully subverts justice. Gordon, 955 So.2d at 305. Therefore, we agree that Judge McKenzie's conduct crossed the line of moral turpitude.
¶ 24. The fact that Judge McKenzie acknowledged the inappropriateness of his conduct and agreed with the Commission's findings mitigates his actions. E.g., Gibson, 883 So.2d at 1158. Though the Commission cites no aggravating factors, we noted above that Judge McKenzie's misleading the Commission is an aggravating factor. ¶ 25. After an independent review of the record, and after carefully considering the findings of fact and recommendations of the Commission, we are unable to agree with the Commission's recommendation. In light of the egregiousness and moral turpitude of Judge McKenzie's conduct, a harsher sanction is required. We noted in Gordon that, in the past, this Court has imposed a public reprimand and assessment of costs for ex parte communications and ticket-fixing. Gordon, 955 So.2d at 306 (citations omitted). But in Gordon and in Sanford, we held that, where the misconduct is egregious, the proper sanction is not only a reprimand, but a suspension as well. Id. And, in Bradford, we found that Gordon and Sanford had established that a suspension is an appropriate sanction for misconduct that involves moral turpitude. See Bradford, 18 So.3d at 256-57 (citations omitted). Engaging in ex parte communications and passing fourteen tickets to the file has been deemed to warrant a suspension. Gordon, 955 So.2d at 306. Here, Judge McKenzie fixed, or attempted to fix, nine tickets for six defendants. Three cases were dismissed in open court without a hearing and without agreement from the State; one case was remanded to the inactive files; and two cases were never called for prosecution. On several occasions, he contacted and attempted to influence the citing officer through a third person. Yet, what makes Judge McKenzie's conduct especially egregious is the fact that he intervened, or attempted to intervene, in cases that had been assigned to another judge. ¶ 26. Given that Judge McKenzie engaged in various forms of ticket-fixing, which included several instances of ex parte communications, and went so far as to intervene in another judge's cases, we find that a thirty-day suspension without pay is warranted in addition to the sanctions recommended by the Commission.