Opinion ID: 852605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stipulated Violations and Sanction

Text: The Respondent and the Commission agree that Respondent's actions have violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, namely:  Canon 1A, which requires a judge to observe [high standards of conduct] to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary, Ind. Judicial Conduct Canon 1 A;  Canon 2A, which requires a judge to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, Jud. Canon 2A;  Canon 3B(9), which requires a judge to dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently, Jud. Canon 3B(9); and  Canon 3C(2), which requires a judge to require staff, court officials and others subject to judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge, Jud. Canon 3C(2). The Court agrees with the parties. The Commission further agrees that the appropriate sanction for Respondent under the facts and circumstances of this case is a public reprimand, and that costs of this proceeding should be assessed against Respondent. After much reflection, we reach this same conclusion. Respondent's conduct reflects discredit on him and the Indiana judicial system. It goes without saying that a trial court judge is duty-bound to carry out the orders of a reviewing appellate tribunal. That duty is at its highest when an appellate remand order affects the substantial rights and interests of a party under the trial court's control. When a trial court judge fails in this duty, the appellate relief secured by the party evaporates. Dawson can never regain the time and freedom that the Court of Appeals' opinion granted him. A public reprimand is a blemish on a sitting judge's reputation, adversely affecting the public's evaluation of the judge's performance in office. It is not the severest sanction we could impose, and we would have been inclined to impose a harsher penalty had there not been an agreement with the Commission. Because Respondent has (albeit belatedly) accepted responsibility for his actions, has apologized to Dawson and his family specifically and to the judicial community generally, and has agreed to accept, with the Commission's consent, a public censure in lieu of a further proceedings, we accept the parties' Conditional Agreement for Discipline. Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge in the Madison Superior Court No. 3, is hereby reprimanded, and the costs of this proceeding are assessed against him. This terminates the disciplinary proceedings relating to the circumstances giving rise to this cause. SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.