Opinion ID: 1706997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Should the Respondent, Judge Howard Junior Buster Spencer, be removed from judicial office and assessed the costs of this proceeding by the Mississippi Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended?

Text: ¶ 40. The Commission unanimously recommended that Justice Court Judge Howard Junior Buster Spencer be removed from judicial office and assessed the costs of this proceeding totaling $9,452.92. While we will consider this recommendation, this Court has stated: In judicial misconduct proceedings, this Court is the trier of fact, and it has sole power to impose sanctions. Garner, 466 So.2d at 885; Collins, 524 So.2d at 556. Although this Court has an obligation to conduct an independent inquiry, it nonetheless gives great weight to the finding of the Commission, which has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Garner, supra at 885; Collins, supra at 556. However, this Court is not bound by any recommendations of the Commission. In re Quick, 553 So.2d 522, 527 (Miss.1989). `The imposition of sanctions is a matter left solely to the discretion of this Court.' Russell, 691 So.2d at 942 ( quoting Mississippi Judicial Performance Comm'n v. Walker, 565 So.2d 1117, 1124 (Miss.1990)). `The sanction involved ought fit the offense.' Russell, 691 So.2d at 942 ( quoting Walker, 565 So.2d at 1124). There are four sanctions that this Court can render: (1) public censure or reprimand, (2) suspension from office, (3) fine and (4) removal from office. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A. ¶ 41. Spencer argues that removal is not warranted in this case based on mitigating factors. These include Spencer's desire to protect the constitutional rights of others, his service in the Shriners and Masons, his church attendance, the lack of any charge of dishonesty, the atmosphere in which he had to work, his refusal to fix tickets, his refusal to arbitrarily dismiss tickets, his attempts to follow the law by calling the Attorney General and the Judicial Performance Commission, his following the advice of Mr. Barnsley, and his enforcing an ethics violation against an attorney. He suggests that no more than a private reprimand is in order. We disagree. ¶ 42. Each judicial disciplinary case is unique. While other similar cases are helpful and instructive in determining the appropriate sanction, each case must ultimately be judged on its own merits. There is no question based on the testimony at the hearing and the letters written by many of the witnesses at trial addressed to the Commission that the Justice Court System in Prentiss County has been under a severe hardship, beginning shortly after Spencer took office. Even the Prentiss County Board of Supervisors sought the assistance of the Commission, claiming that the Prentiss County Justice Court no longer works effectively. Judge Spencer tried to blame all of his actions on other people and never apologized for any of his conduct at any time during the lengthy hearing before the Commission. ¶ 43. The Commission cites to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the language of that Court bears repeating. It states as follows: Those who are called upon to live the life of a judge must act with dignity and respect toward others, and must assume full responsibility for their actions. The judges who sit in our communities are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the fundamental rights of others. When, as here, it is established by clear and convincing evidence that an individual is not competent to sit as a judge because she has breached that sacred trust, the same great authority that established those fundamental rights commands us to protect the citizenry and the judicial system from harm, and remove that individual. There is no place in the judiciary for one who will not take equal pains with each and every case and litigant, no matter how small or humble, to ensure that they are guaranteed the same fundamental rights as the greatest and mightiest in our State. In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 265 Ga.843, 462 S.E.2d 728, 736 (1995). ¶ 44. Removal is the only appropriate sanction given the facts of this case. Removal is the only way that the citizens of Prentiss County may eventually regain confidence in their Justice Court System. This Court has removed judges from office for far less egregious conduct than that exhibited in this case. Spencer has demonstrated [a] pattern of repeated misconduct which is most serious. In re Collins, 524 So.2d 553, 557 (Miss. 1987). Spencer has violated most every Canon, and we will not tolerate such flagrant disregard for the rules that every judge is bound to follow. Therefore, the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance is accepted. ¶ 45. This opinion constitutes formal and official notice of the removal of Howard Junior Buster Spencer, from the office of Prentiss County Justice Court Judge, Southern District, as per the terms contained herein. ¶ 46. The Clerk of this Court shall forward attested copies of this opinion to the Secretary of State and State Auditor of Mississippi, as well as to the clerks of the Prentiss County Justice, Chancery, and Circuit Courts and to the Prentiss County Board of Supervisors. ¶ 47. JUDGE HOWARD JUNIOR BUSTER SPENCER IS HEREBY REMOVED FROM THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE COURT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF PRENTISS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND IS ASSESSED WITH ALL COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,452.92, FOR WHICH LET EXECUTION ISSUE. PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.