Misss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Hartzog


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-JP-01022-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-22-2010
Opinion Author: Justice Chandler
Holding: Publicly reprimanded, suspended from office without pay for six months, and assessed costs of $1,411.55

Additional Case Information: Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Sanctions


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 - Sanctions

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance a formal complaint against Johnny C. Hartzog, Justice Court Judge for District Two, Jefferson Davis County, alleging judicial misconduct. Following a hearing, the Committee filed its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. Judge Hartzog objected to these findings. The Commission found that Judge Hartzog’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Further, the Commission found that Judge Hartzog’s conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice bringing the judicial office into disrepute pursuant to Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. The Commission recommended that Judge Hartzog receive a public reprimand; suspension from the office of Justice Court Judge, Jefferson Davis County, Post 2, for a period of six months without pay; and assessment of costs of the proceeding in the amount of $1,411.55.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Willful misconduct Willful misconduct in office is the improper or wrongful use of power of his office by a judge acting intentionally, or with gross unconcern for his conduct and generally in bad faith. A specific intent to use the powers of the judicial office to accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was beyond the legitimate exercise of his authority constitutes bad faith. A judge through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad faith, may behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute, and the effect of these actions is the same regardless of whether bad faith or negligence and ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions. Here, the Commission determined that the judge had an obvious conflict of interest in a particular case that came before him. Judge Hartzog had known one of the parties all her life; was friends with her father and on the board of deacons at the same church as her father; had performed yard work on the property that was at issue in the eviction case; and had spoken with the party’s father about the fact that the father was proud of his daughter for owning her own home. The Commission also found that Judge Hartzog had failed to conduct his extrajudicial activities in a manner that minimized risk of conflict with judicial obligations. He also had failed to acknowledge that conflicts of interest may arise when yard services customers appear before him and that he may gain knowledge of information relating to a litigant’s case in the process of serving them in a business capacity. Judge Hartzog’s actions constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. Issue 2: Sanctions The Commission recommended that Judge Hartzog receive a public reprimand, be suspended for a period of six months without pay, and assessed costs in the amount of $1,411.55. Judge Hartzog has held his position for twenty-nine years. No further evidence of Judge Hartzog’s public service is in the record. The Court has imposed similar sanctions to those recommended by the Commission in other cases. The plaintiff in this case was affected by Judge Hartzog’s conduct because his eviction action was delayed. In addition, he was subjected to pressure to settle the matter. It is reasonable to conclude that the public’s perception of the judiciary, through Judge Hartzog’s actions, was harmed. Judge Hartzog attempted to negotiate a land sale in place of making a decision on a tenant-eviction matter for the same property in question. Judge Hartzog has had prior disciplinary actions against him in the past. While Judge Hartzog’s conduct in this case is not the same as in the other cases, his conduct shows a pattern of continued violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. There is no evidence of mitigating circumstances in the record. Judge Hartzog never acknowledged any wrongdoing either at the hearing or in his written submission of information to the Commission. Thus, the Court orders Justice Court Judge Johnny C. Hartzog to be publicly reprimanded; to be suspended from office for a period of six months without pay; and to be assessed costs in the amount of $1,411.55.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court