Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Osborne
| Docket Number: | 2007-JP-00776-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-JP-00776-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2008 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Respondent's Motion to Supplement the Record is denied; County Court Judge Solomon C. Osborne of Leflore County is hereby suspended from office, without compensation, for one hundred eighty (180) days from and after the issuance of the mandate in this case, and is assessed costs in the amount of $2,525.08. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct in office - Sanctions Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, P.J., and Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J. with separate written opinion. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2007 Appealed from: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: COUNTY COURT JUDGE SOLOMON C. OSBORNE OF LEFLORE COUNTY IS HEREBY SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, FOR ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FROM AND AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE IN THIS CASE, AND IS ASSESSED COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,525.08 Case Number: 2004-311/312 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III,
DARLENE D. BALLARD,
AYANNA BATISTE |
||
| Appellee: | Solomon C. Osborne | LEONARD McCLELLAN |
|
|
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 in office - Sanctions |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Solomon C. Osborne be suspended from the office of County Court Judge of Leflore County, for ninety days, without compensation, and that he be assessed the costs of the proceedings against him ($2,525.08) for his actions in response to the repossession of an automobile jointly owned by his wife and mother-in-law. Judge Osborne contested the allegations in the complaint at the hearing and contests on appeal the recommended sentence. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct in office Acts which constitute willful misconduct in judicial office are abuses of the judge’s office in such a manner that the judicial office is brought into disrepute. Judge Osborne argues that the Commission did not meet its burden of proving that he committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. It is undisputed that Judge Osborne attempted to stop the repossession of an automobile jointly owned by his wife and mother-in-law, and that he publicly referred to his superior knowledge of the law in the process of doing so. Because of the involvement of the Greenwood Police, Judge Osborne’s status as a local judge places his position of influence at issue. The Commission found by the credible evidence and the circumstances that all officers who came to the scene were aware of Judge Osborne’s identity and position as a county court judge. Judge Osborne’s reference to his knowledge of the law was a blatant attempt to use his office either as an advantage with the law enforcement officers at the scene, or as an intimidation tactic. Furthermore, because the automobile was not titled in his name, but in the name of his wife and mother-in-law, these actions were in an effort to lend the prestige of his office to assist his family members. Judge Osborne’s actions in regard to this incident showed that he acted intentionally, or with gross unconcern for his conduct in violating the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and thereby bringing his judicial office into disrepute. Judge Osborne argues that all of his actions were lawful because he was engaged in an objection to self-help repossession. The record demonstrates behavior on the part of Judge Osborne which resulted in a breach of peace. Judge Osborne also argues that his public objection to the repossession was merely an exercise of rights to which he was entitled under Mississippi law. Neither the secured party nor the debtor is permitted to breach the peace under Mississippi law. The contention that one has the “right” to object to self-help repossession by causing a breach of peace is without merit and completely unsupported by the law. A right to object to self-help repossession was not a justification for Judge Osborne’s actions. Issue 2: Sanctions The Commission recommends that Judge Osborne be suspended from office without pay for a period of ninety days and assessed costs of these proceedings. Judge Osborne argues that this penalty is too harsh, and that he should receive no more than a public reprimand. Judge Osborne was appointed to the bench in 2001 and was elected for a full term in the November 2002 general election, and this incident occurred just two days later. The magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered were relatively great and resulted from an abuse of Judge Osborne’s office. This misconduct is not the first recorded for Judge Osborne, as he has been disciplined in the past for practicing law as a judge. Judge Osborne’s actions constituted an abuse of power for personal gain and therefore constituted moral turpitude. Aggravating circumstances are present in that Judge Osborne has shown no remorse or acknowledgment of the impropriety of his conduct in this matter. Judge Osborne has continued to defend his actions as being proper. Judge Osborne’s actions occurred in full view of the public over an extended period of time. Judge Osborne invoked the authority of his office during the event to thwart the attempt by police to peacefully resolve the matter. Judge Osborne used his office for the direct personal gain of family and indirect personal gain. The combination of these factors warrants a substantial penalty. His conduct warrants a suspension for one hundred eighty days, without pay, and the assessment of the costs of the proceedings against Judge Osborne. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
