Opinion ID: 2497934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 14. Our review is guided by the rules we adopted, which shall be liberally interpreted so as to carry out the mandate of the electorate by its approval of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. M.C.J.P. Rule 1C. We `accord careful consideration [to] the findings of fact and recommendations of the Commission....' Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So.3d 172, 176 (Miss.2011) (quoting In re Removal of Lloyd W. Anderson, Justice Court Judge, 412 So.2d 743, 746 (Miss.1982)). With all due consideration to the concerns stated in the dissent, the Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation is not contested by the parties in the record before us. Thus, no justiciable issue is before us regarding facts or recommendations. We are left only with our duty to impose a constitutionally permissible sanction. See Miss. Const. art. 6 § 177A.
¶ 15. We agree with the Commission that Judge Dearman violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), 3B(7), 3C(1), and 3E(1) of the Code. We find by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Dearman's conduct was willful, as well as prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing her judicial office into disrepute. The judge's conduct is in violation of Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. ¶ 16. Judge Dearman argues that most of the Complaints against [her] are matters involving the exercise of judicial discretion, disagreements with [her] application of the law, and honest mistakes. She now argues that her actions were not misconduct, but derived from being a fallible human, inevitably subject to occasional error while making hundreds of decisions often under pressure. This Court has defined the term willful misconduct to include any knowing misuse of the office, whatever the motive. In re Anderson, 412 So.2d 743, 745 (Miss.1982) (quoting In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246, 255 (1977)). By engaging in the following conduct, Judge Dearman knowingly misused her office by: (1) sua sponte reducing bonds and charges without proper motion; (2) conditioning the reduction on church attendance; (3) exceeding her authority by altering bonds after a defendant had been released on bond or had waived preliminary hearing, or after a preliminary hearing had been conducted; (4) permitting others to create the impression that they were in a special position to influence her as a judge; (5) initiating and inviting ex parte communications; and (6) presiding at her nephew's initial appearance. Her motivations (including her belief that her system for handling drug offenders is more effective and better serves the public) are irrelevant to a finding of willful misconduct in office. See Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Vess, 10 So.3d 486, 489 (Miss.2009). ¶ 17. This Court has explained that conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute includes, by necessity, all willful misconduct. Anderson, 412 So.2d at 745. However, such conduct may also include behavior brought about through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad faith.... The result is the same regardless of whether bad faith or negligence or ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872, 875 (Miss.2000) (quoting In re Anderson, 451 So.2d 232, 234 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 18. Judge Dearman agreed with the Commission that her conduct violated several canons of the Code, particularly: Canon 1 (charging judges to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of conduct to uphold the integrity of the judiciary); Canon 2A (charging judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary); Canon 2B (charging judges to avoid lending the prestige of their office to advance the private interests of others); Canon 3B(1) (charging judges not to hear and decide matters requiring disqualification); Canon 3B(2) (charging judges to be faithful to the law and not be swayed by public clamor); Canon 3B(7) (charging judges not to initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications other than those expressly excepted); Canon 3C(1) (charging judges to discharge their administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and to cooperate with other judges and court officials); and Canon 3E(1) (charging judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality may be questioned or on grounds provided by law or judicial canon). ¶ 19. Judge Dearman agreed with the Commission's recommended sanctions. She acknowledges that she violated several canons of the Code and that her actions constituted willful misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing her judicial office into disrepute. We accept the agreed-upon findings and recommendation. We find that Judge Dearman's misconduct was willful and prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing the judicial office into disrepute.
¶ 20. The sanctions agreed upon by the Commission and Judge Dearman are a public reprimand, suspension for thirty days without pay, and payment of the cost of these proceedings in the amount of $100. Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution grants this Court the power, upon recommendation of the Commission, to order the removal, suspension, fine, public censure, or reprimand of any judge in Mississippi. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A. The sanctions imposed should be consistent with those in other cases and ought [to] fit the offense. In re Inquiry Concerning Bailey, 541 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.1989). The six-factor Gibson analysis is applied generally to the determination of all sanctions in judicial misconduct proceedings.... Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.2004), overruled on other grounds by Boone, 60 So.3d 172.
¶ 21. Judge Dearman has served her district as a justice-court judge for six years. The record is silent as to the character of her public service.
¶ 22. We determine whether the recommended sanctions fit the offense and are consistent with previous holdings of this Court. The cases cited infra involve justice-court judges accused of misconduct, including ex parte communications, abuse of process, procedural errors, and lending the prestige of office to advance the private interests of others. ¶ 23. In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Fowlkes, 967 So.2d 12 (Miss.2007), this Court found that the recommended sanctions for ex parte communications were insufficient, and ordered a public reprimand, a thirty-day suspension without pay, and the payment of costs. Id. at 16. However, Judge Fowlkes had been disciplined for the same violation and had, just a year earlier, acknowledged the impropriety of ex parte communications. Id. at 15. In Vess, this Court accepted the Commission's recommendation of a public reprimand and a fine of $2,000 for violations including ex parte communications. See Vess, 10 So.3d at 495. The Court noted that Vess had been disciplined for the same misconduct a decade earlier. Id. at 494. Likewise, in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Britton, 936 So.2d 898 (Miss.2006), this Court ordered a public reprimand, a thirty-day suspension, and the payment of costs for a pattern of ex parte communications, including setting aside a judgment based on ex parte communications. Id. at 905, 907. In egregious cases, this Court has removed judges for engaging in a pattern of misconduct including ex parte communications. See Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Willard, 788 So.2d 736 (Miss.2001); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Spencer, 725 So.2d 171 (Miss.1998). ¶ 24. Here, although this case involves multiple instances of ex parte communications and an agreed finding of an overall pattern of violations, this is Judge Dearman's first formal commission action. Her ex parte communications, taken alone, do not constitute a pattern as egregious as that in Britton. She initiated ex parte communications with a law-enforcement officer. In another case, she reduced a felony charge to a misdemeanor based on information received ex parte. She also invited ex parte communications through her writings. ¶ 25. This Court has disciplined judges for abuse of process and procedural errors. See Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Roberts, 952 So.2d 934 (Miss.2007); Willard, 788 So.2d at 738-39. In Roberts, the judge admitted to numerous violations, was in his first term of office, and had never been formally disciplined by the Commission. Id. at 935-37, 942. This Court accepted the Commission's recommendation and ordered a public reprimand, thirty-day suspension, and payment of costs. Id. at 942. Judge Dearman's abuse-of-process and procedural violations are comparable in number and severity to Roberts's. She also is in a similar position regarding her overall experience and disciplinary history. Judge Dearman sua sponte reduced charges in two cases, reduced bonds without authority, and, in three cases, improperly altered bond terms. ¶ 26. This Court has disciplined judges for conduct creating the appearance of impropriety by failing to recuse themselves from a case involving a relative. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Cole, 932 So.2d 9 (Miss.2006), overruled on other grounds by Boone, 60 So.3d 172. See also Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 918 So.2d 1247 (Miss.2005). Judge Cole reinstated his grandson's driver's license and attempted to use his influence to keep him out of a state facility. Cole, 932 So.2d at 11. This Court found that Judge Cole should not have involved himself in any facet of the pending matters and should have recused himself from any matters involving a relative. Id. Here, Judge Dearman presided over the initial appearance of her nephew, a person within the third degree of relationship. Miss.Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1). Even if we were to consider Judge Dearman's new argument that Brown and Jones were not harmed, as they declined the opportunity to object, it would be unhelpful to her. The harm to be considered here is the harm to the public's impression of the judiciary. See Vess, 10 So.3d at 493. Here, Judge Dearman's handling of her nephew's case created the appearance of impropriety, especially considering the inconsistent result. ¶ 27. Likewise, Judge Dearman's writings created an appearance of impropriety, harming the public's impression of the judiciary. She might have given, as the Commission found and Dearman agreed, the impression that she was advocating in favor of drug defendants by setting low bond amounts. Conversely, she could have given the impression that a drug defendant could not receive a fair trial in her court. Further, her call for a public debate and for public input on her handling of initial-appearance hearings allowed the impression that she would let public sentiment sway her judicial decisions.
¶ 28. Judge Dearman's misconduct involved nine cases over a period of more than three years and affected at least twenty-two litigants and complainants, including the parent of a minor, a county prosecutor, an MBN agent, an MHP trooper, two sheriff's deputies, and a probation officer. Her misconduct also affected the operation of other courts, as well as the district attorney's office, a bonding company, and a drug-rehabilitation center. The harm caused by her public writings and her handling of her nephew's case is detailed above. ¶ 29. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is particularly important at the justice-court level because of the harmful effect of such an appearance on the public's impression of the entire judiciary. This Court has stated, [o]fficial integrity of our Justice Court Judges is vitally important, for it is on that level that many citizens have their only experience with the judiciary. Vess, 10 So.3d at 493 (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning Garner, 466 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1985), overruled on other grounds by Boone, 60 So.3d 172).
¶ 30. The series of formal complaints at issue here represent Judge Dearman's first formal disciplinary action, although she has had one previous informal action regarding unrelated conduct. The Commission found, and Judge Dearman agreed, that the numerous violations constitute a pattern. Judge Dearman committed similar actions during a period of more than three years. These actions were the result of a policy decision that she had announced and advocated to the public. A history of formal disciplinary actions is not necessary to a finding of a pattern if a judge has committed numerous violations. See Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bradford, 18 So.3d 251, 256 (Miss.2009) (ten violations); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Cowart, 936 So.2d 343, 350 (Miss.2006) (three violations). We find a pattern of misconduct.
¶ 31. The joint memorandum brief states that Judge Dearman's actions do not rise to the level of conduct involving moral turpitude. This Court has stated, Moral turpitude includes, but is not limited to, actions which involve interference with the administration of justice, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, or other such actions which bring the judiciary into disrepute. Gibson, 883 So.2d at 1158 n. 2. In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gordon, 955 So.2d 300 (Miss.2007), this Court described moral-turpitude analysis as follows: The bottom line of this element is that we must determine whether a judge's conduct crosses the line from simple negligence or mistake, to willful conduct which takes advantage of a judge's position for greed or other inappropriate motives. If the conduct willfully subverts justice, more punishment is warranted. Id. at 305. ¶ 32. In Vess, this Court examined the moral-turpitude element at length. See Vess, 10 So.3d at 493-94. The Vess Court found that the violations brought the judicial office into disrepute, but did not meet the Gordon standard for moral turpitude. Id. at 494. We find no evidence that Judge Dearman's conduct involved moral turpitude.
¶ 33. We find neither the presence nor absence of mitigating or aggravating factors. ¶ 34. We considered the agreed sanctions and performed a Gibson analysis. We accept the agreed recommendation. We find that the recommended sanctions fit the offense and should be imposed.