Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Teel
| Docket Number: | 2003-JP-01263-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-15-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: PUBLIC REPRIMAND |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Public reprimand - Assessment of costs Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Easley, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-26-2003 Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Recommended public reprimand. Case Number: 2002-195 |
|
| Note: | judicial performance | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III
DARLENE D. BALLARD |
||
| Appellee: | Walter W. Teel | WALTER W. TEEL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Public reprimand - Assessment of costs |
| Summary of the Facts: | Former Chancery Judge Walter Teel made a total of $3,218.48 in charges to local Gulfport vendors for miscellaneous office purchases which were charged to an account known as the "Eighth Chancery Court District Account." The items ordered were billed to this account and sent to the Court Administrator for the District. The Court Administrator would collect from the judge who made the charge and pay the vendor through the account. The charging judge had the responsibility to seek reimbursement from the State after he paid the Court Administrator. Judge Teel refused to pay the administrator for the charges in question, but sought reimbursement from the State anyway. He deposited the reimbursements into his personal bank account but did not pay the court administrator until he was notified of an investigation by the State Auditor and Attorney General. Judge Teel was indicted for embezzlement. Th e Commission on Judicial Performance filed a complaint. After Judge Teel was found not guilty on all counts in the criminal case, the Commission dismissed its inquiry. Later, however, the Commission filed another complaint alleging the same conduct that prompted the indictment. The Commission determined that Judge Teel's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(1), and 5C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. The Commission recommends that Judge Teel be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct Willful misconduct is the improper or wrongful use of the power of his office by a judge acting intentionally, or with gross unconcern for his conduct, and generally in bad faith. While Judge Teel takes full responsibility for not timely paying the bills in question, he claims he did not willfully or intentionally do anything to cause disrespect to the judiciary. He claims he did not pay the bills because his wife's illness. Even though Judge Teel was in a stressful situation, that does not excuse the conduct at issue here. His actions constituted willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. Issue 2: Sanctions Sanctions should be consistent with the offense and similar to like cases. The Commission found that Judge Teel's misappropriation of the reimbursement he received is serious because it cast doubt upon the integrity of the entire judiciary and that numerous vendors were affected by Judge Teel's refusal to pay the accounts due even after he was reimbursed. Based on the facts, a public reprimand is appropriate. Issue 3: Costs Costs of a formal hearing before the Commission are assessed to the judge who is the object of the hearing when he is found in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Costs are assessed when the complaining party has notice that costs are being sought. The Commission recommended Judge Teel be assessed all costs in both its inquiries. As Judge Teel never contested his suspension the first inquiry and the Commission dismissed the complaint, there is no basis to award costs for that inquiry. However, costs are assessed in the second inquiry in the amount of $440.69. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
