Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-JP-00870-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-26-2006
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: PUBLIC REPRIMAND; 30-DAY SUSPENSION; AND, ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00

Additional Case Information: Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Sanctions - Public reprimand - Suspension without pay
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J., and Diaz, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley and Graves, JJ., Concur in Part and Dissent in Part Without Separate Written Opinion
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2006
Appealed from: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
Judge: Patricia D. Wise
Case Number: 2005-227

Note: Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance is granted in part and denied in part.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance




LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III, DARLENE D. BALLARD



 

Appellee: John L. Sanford G. DAVID GARNER  

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 - Public reprimand - Suspension without pay

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a Formal Complaint charging Covington County Southern District Justice Court Judge John L. Sanford with willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. The Commission and Judge Sanford submitted a joint motion for approval of a recommendation that Judge Sanford be publicly reprimanded and assessed with costs.

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. Judge Sanford has agreed in writing that he worked through the sheriff to have the arresting officer dismiss the charges against a DUI defendant. Judge Sanford likewise admits that he violated the cited judicial canons by engaging in such conduct which would be deemed to be willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Issue 2: Sanctions The Commission has recommended that Judge Sanford be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs of $100. Mitigating factors the Court takes into consideration include the length and character of the judge’s public service; whether there is any prior case law on point; the magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of conduct; whether moral turpitude was involved; and the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Judge Sanford was in his ninth month as a Justice Court Judge when the violations occurred. There is precedent where a judge engaged in similar conduct and received the same sanction recommended for Judge Sanford in the present case. Judge Sanford’s willful misconduct is very serious. There is no evidence of a pattern of inappropriate conduct. Today’s facts, which are not only undisputed, but agreed upon by both the Commission and Judge Sanford, clearly and convincingly prove that Judge Sanford’s actions involved moral turpitude. There is mitigating evidence in the fact that Judge Sanford acknowledges the inappropriateness of his conduct and agrees with the findings of the Commission, and there is no evidence of aggravating circumstances. Based on the record in this case, the appropriate sanction for Judge Sanford’s conduct is not only a public reprimand, but also a thirty-day suspension and assessment of costs.


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