Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dearman
| Docket Number: | 2010-JP-01435-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-JP-01435-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-16-2011 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Suspended for thirty days without pay, publicly reprimanded, and assessed costs of $100. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Impermissible attempt to add to record - M.R.A.P. 10(f) - Willful misconduct - Sanctions Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2010 Appealed from: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE FOR THIRTY (30) DAYS WITHOUT PAY; PUBLIC REPRIMAND; AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100 Case Number: 2009-144 |
|
| Note: | Motion to Add to the Record is denied. See opinion of this Court handed down this date at paragraph 5. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
DARLENE D. BALLARD
AYANNA BATISTE BUTLER
JOHN B. TONEY |
||
| Appellee: | Theresa Brown Dearman | SEAN JEFFREY TINDELL |
|
|
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 - Impermissible attempt to add to record - M.R.A.P. 10(f) - Willful misconduct - Sanctions |
| Summary of the Facts: | In November 2009, December 2009, and March 2010, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed formal complaints charging Justice Court Judge Theresa Dearman with willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice bringing the judicial office into disrepute in violation of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct. In lieu of a hearing, the Commission and Judge Dearman signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation. In September 2010, Judge Dearman and the Commission signed and filed with this Court a Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendation. Judge Dearman filed a simultaneous brief in support of the joint motion. However, Judge Dearman’s brief included factual allegations and assertions that dispute portions of the agreed statement and joint motion, and also attached proposed exhibits not included in the record before the Commission. The Commission moved to “Strike Portions of Respondent’s Memorandum Brief in Support of Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations filed by [the Commission].” Judge Dearman responded, arguing that the record was void of items that would have been included, had there been a hearing, and that the additional and contradictory material was presented to aid the Court in conducting its review. The Court granted the Commission’s motion finding that the exhibits attached to Judge Dearman’s brief and the contradictory factual allegations and assertions were an impermissible attempt to add to the record per M.R.A.P. 10(f). |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct Judge Dearman argues that “most of the Complaints against [her] are matters involving the exercise of judicial discretion, disagreements with [her] application of the law, and honest mistakes” and that her actions were not misconduct, but derived from being a fallible human, inevitably subject to occasional error “while making hundreds of decisions often under pressure.” Willful misconduct includes any knowing misuse of the office, whatever the motive. By engaging in the following conduct, Judge Dearman knowingly misused her office by: (1) sua sponte reducing bonds and charges without proper motion; (2) conditioning the reduction on church attendance; (3) exceeding her authority by altering bonds after a defendant had been released on bond or had waived preliminary hearing, or after a preliminary hearing had been conducted; (4) permitting others to create the impression that they were in a special position to influence her as a judge; (5) initiating and inviting ex parte communications; and (6) presiding at her nephew’s initial appearance. Her motivations (including her belief that her system for handling drug offenders is more effective and better serves the public) are irrelevant to a finding of willful misconduct in office. Judge Dearman’s misconduct was willful and prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing the judicial office into disrepute. Issue 2: Sanctions The sanctions agreed upon by the Commission and Judge Dearman are a public reprimand, suspension for thirty days without pay, and payment of the cost of these proceedings in the amount of $100. Judge Dearman has served her district as a justice-court judge for six years. The record is silent as to the character of her public service. The recommended sanctions fit the offense and are consistent with previous holdings. Although this case involves multiple instances of ex parte communications and an agreed finding of an overall pattern of violations, this is Judge Dearman’s first formal commission action. Judge Dearman’s misconduct involved nine cases over a period of more than three years and affected at least twenty-two litigants and complainants, including the parent of a minor, a county prosecutor, an MBN agent, an MHP trooper, two sheriff’s deputies, and a probation officer. Her misconduct also affected the operation of other courts, as well as the district attorney’s office, a bonding company, and a drug-rehabilitation center. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is particularly important at the justice-court level because of the harmful effect of such an appearance on the public’s impression of the entire judiciary. The series of formal complaints at issue here represent Judge Dearman’s first formal disciplinary action, although she has had one previous informal action regarding unrelated conduct. A history of formal disciplinary actions is not necessary to a finding of a pattern if a judge has committed numerous violations. There is no evidence that Judge Dearman’s conduct involved moral turpitude. There is neither the presence nor absence of mitigating or aggravating factors. The recommended sanctions fit the offense and should be imposed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
