Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Justice Court Judge T.T.
| Docket Number: | 2005-JP-01660-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Justice Court Judge T.T. Shall be Privately Reprimanded; Shall Set Aside and Correct Original Sentence; Shall be Assessed the Commission's Costs of $598.98 and Shall Become Familiar with In Re Bailey. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Sanction - Private reprimand Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Cobb, P.J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-25-2005 Appealed from: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: The Commission recommends to this Court that Judge T.T. be publicly reprimanded; assessed the costs of this proceeding; become familiar with this Court’s opinion in In re Bailey, 541 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 1989); and be required to set aside and correct the improper sentence. Case Number: 2004-156 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III, DARLENE D. BALLARD |
||
| Appellee: | Justice Court Judge T.T. | JAMES W. NOBLES, JR., JOSEPH P. DURR |
|
|
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 - Sanction - Private reprimand |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint charging Justice Court Judge T.T. with judicial misconduct in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. The Commission determined that Judge T.T. was in violation of Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission recommends that Judge T.T. be publicly reprimanded; assessed the costs of this proceeding; become familiar with the Court’s opinion in In re Bailey, 541 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 1989); and be required to set aside and correct the improper sentence. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct The Commission argues Judge T.T. committed willful judicial misconduct when the judge accepted a plea agreement that did not comply with mandatory sentencing as the statute required. Willful misconduct in office of necessity is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. However, a judge may also, through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. In the matter at hand, Judge T.T. relied on the county prosecutor’s knowledge of the statutes encompassing headlighting violations, and did not review those statutes before the plea agreement was accepted. Judge T.T. contends that the judicial actions resulted in an innocent and honest mistake. The record plainly establishes Judge T.T. was in error when the plea agreement which was in violation of the applicable statute was accepted. Thus, it can hardly be argued that Judge T.T. was not somewhat negligent and ignorant of governing statutes. All judges inevitably make some mistakes during the course and scope of their duties. However, Judge T.T.’s failure to read and be familiar with the applicable statutes in a matter before the court is an inexcusable mistake. Judges should never rely solely on attorneys to inform them of the appropriate law to be applied in each case under consideration. A number of states subscribe to the notion that three situations may elevate legal error to a violation of cannon standards: egregious legal error, legal error motivated by bad faith, and a continuing pattern of legal error. Judge T.T. is not guilty of egregious legal error, nor of bad faith. Nevertheless, the neglect should be labeled misconduct because of the continuing pattern of legal error. Issue 2: Sanction In determining the appropriateness of sanctions, the Court considers 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 T.T. has held the position of justice court judge for approximately five and half years. There is no authority directly on point with this matter. The offense that occurred was not overwhelmingly critical, and did not result in an unconscionable result to any party in this matter. Two previous complaints that have been filed against Judge T.T. for judicial misconduct. In the first complaint Judge T.T. agreed to be privately reprimanded by the Commission itself. The second complaint was dismissed. Moral turpitude is not involved in this matter. When Judge T.T. was presented with the plea agreement, the court completely and blindly relied on the county prosecutor’s judgment as a seasoned prosecutor. This is a mitigating circumstance. In addition, Judge T.T. recognized the misconduct and accepted that error was the result. Judge T.T. must set aside and correct the original sentence to conform with the mandatory statutory punishments. Judge T.T. is assessed the costs of Commission’s hearing in the amount of $598.98. Next, Judge T.T. shall become familiar with the requirements in In re Bailey, 541 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 1989). A private reprimand is appropriate for the misconduct in this instance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
