Opinion ID: 1706997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Commission violate the Due Process Rights of the respondent protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3 Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890?

Text: ¶ 7. Spencer's argument that his due process rights were violated contains two principle arguments. First he argues that the procedures and investigation of this matter were in violation of its own rules, including the allegation of ex parte communications by the members of the Commission and the failure to grant his request to appear before the full Commission prior to making its findings of fact and recommendations to this Court. Second, he argues that both Article Six, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and the Code of Judicial Conduct are unconstitutionally vague.
¶ 8. The first argument in part was recently addressed in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Russell when this Court found that the composition of the Commission is not unconstitutional. Russell, 691 So.2d at 945-47. This Court further found that the combination of investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in the Commission does not violate due process. Id. at 945-47. At the beginning of the hearing before a three member panel of the Commission, attorney Lowrey moved to have all three members recuse themselves, in particular Judge Lowrey, the presiding judge, based on alleged improper ex parte communications. This motion was overruled based on how the Commission is set up and the multiple roles assigned to the Commission. This argument goes directly to the multiple roles of the Commission as investigator and prosecutor. As stated in Russell, [t]he processes of the Commission do not in and of themselves appear to present an unacceptable risk of bias. Id. at 946. This Court finds, as in the Russell case, that based on these allegations Judge Spencer has not demonstrated that bias in fact permeates the process. Russell, 691 So.2d at 946. ¶ 9. Spencer next contends that the Commission violated Rule 5B, 5C and 8E of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. Spencer relies on two newspaper clippings in the local Prentiss County Newspaper to support his contention that the Commission breached the confidentiality requirement of Rule 5B. This is without merit. Although there was an article pertaining to the alleged charges dated December 19, 1996, and another article about the closed hearing near the time of trial, there is no indication that the Commission was in any way responsible for this disclosure. ¶ 10. Spencer also takes issue with the fact that he was not given the required ninety day notice in Rule 5C that shall be given to the judge if the initial complaint is not dismissed by the Commission. Spencer contends that the 96-091 complaint by Pamela Hodum was filed more than ninety days prior to any notification to Spencer. Rule 5C of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance states, Failure to make timely notification shall not be grounds for dismissal of any investigation or proceeding. ¶ 11. Spencer further argues that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not timely filed pursuant to Rule 8E of the Rules of the Commission. Therefore he moves to have this Court strike the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Rule 8E requires the Commission to file its findings within thirty (30) days after the hearing is concluded unless the Commission grants additional time. The record reflects that an order was signed on July 24, 1997, ordering both the Commission and the respondent to file their proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law simultaneously forty five (45) days after a copy of the transcript is received by each counsel. In addition, on September 18, 1997, attorney Lowrey filed a motion for additional fifteen (15) days to complete findings of fact and conclusions of law. Given these facts, we find that although the technical requirement of Rule 8E may not have been followed, given the voluminous record in this case, the length of the hearing, the number of witnesses who testified, and the fact that Spencer's attorney also requested additional time even after the Commission had set a deadline for submission, this argument fails. ¶ 12. The next argument Spencer raises is that he was denied due process because his motion to appear in person before the full Commission prior to its making its findings was denied. He argues that he was denied the right to appear when the Commission considered the recommendation of the three judge panel. This argument is without merit. Rule 8C of the Rules of the Commission, as adopted and approved by this Court, provides: The formal hearing shall be conducted before the entire Commission, or before a committee of the Commission, a master or a factfinder designated by the Commission. Spencer's inquiry was heard by a three member committee of the Commission, duly designated and appointed in accordance with this rule. Consequently, Spencer was not denied due process when he was afforded a seven day hearing before a duly appointed committee where he could present witnesses and advance his defense in response to all allegations the Commission had filed against him.
¶ 13. Another challenge Spencer makes addresses the constitutionality of § 177A of the Mississippi Constitution and his contention that the language is unconstitutionally vague. This Court has already addressed this contention and held that the language of § 177A of the Mississippi Constitution is not unconstitutionally vague. Russell, 691 So.2d at 941-42. In Russell, this Court stated, The language of § 177A and the interpretations of that language by this Court are sufficient to put men of common intelligence on notice of what type of conduct is prohibited. Id. at 942. This argument has been decided and is without merit. ¶ 14. Spencer also contends that the Canons of Judicial Conduct are unconstitutionally vague. In particular he challenges Canon 1, 2A, 2B, and 3B as being unconstitutionally vague in violation of his right to due process. However, Spencer cites no authority for the assertion that the Canons are unconstitutionally vague. After reviewing the language of these specific Canons as well as the interpretations of that language by this Court, see Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanders, 708 So.2d 866, 875-76 (Miss.1998) (presenting text of Canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(4), 3B(1), 3C(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct with discussion and interpretation as it relates to facts); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Vess, 692 So.2d 80, 84 (Miss.1997) (interpreting Canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct), we find that the Canons are sufficient to put men of common intelligence on notice of what type of conduct is prohibited. This issue is likewise without merit. ¶ 15. Spencer was not denied his right to due process. The procedures implemented by the Commission comport with notions of fundamental fairness, particularly when considering the multiple roles that the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance is required to fulfill.