Updated July 31, 2007

PUBLIC SANCTIONS
FY 2007
The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2007. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 06-0064-JP

PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION

HONORABLE LEONARDO SANTOYA JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1 EAGLE PASS, MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on August 31, 2006, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Leonardo Santoya, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Judge Santoya was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Leonardo Santoya was Justice of the Peace, for Precinct 1, in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas.

2.

On or about August 8, 2005, two criminal complaints were filed against Ms. Margarita Torres for disorderly conduct stemming from an incident that allegedly took place on July 18, 2005, in the office of the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3. On or about August 24, 2005, Ms. Torres was cited by the Maverick County Sheriffs Department for disorderly conduct, and ordered to appear before Judge Santoya on September 1, 2005. It is unclear from a review of the courts records if the August 24, 2005, citations related to the July 18 incident or were new offenses. According to Judge Santoyas written responses to the Commissions inquiry, on September 1, 2005, the judge held a pre-trial hearing to ascertain what the issues were in the case. The matter was reset to September 6, 2005, by agreement of the parties . . . in order to continue with discovery and to locate the witnesses. On September 6, 2005, a trial was held in the matter and, according to Judge Santoya, all interested parties were present and afforded an opportunity to speak and present their case. Following the trial, Judge Santoya found Ms. Torres guilty and assessed a $200 fine for each count of disorderly conduct. At no time prior to the commencement of the proceedings did Judge Santoya advise Ms. Torres of her constitutional rights, including her right to counsel, her right to remain silent, and her right to a jury trial. At no time prior to the commencement of the proceedings did Ms. Torres enter a plea to the charges against her. At no time during the proceedings did a prosecutor appear before Judge Santoya to present the States case against Ms. Torres. Based on a review of the courts file regarding the Torres matter, it appears that Judge Santoya failed to enter or issue a written order of conviction or judgment against Ms. Torres.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. . .. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part, A judge shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Santoya failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law by proceeding to trial in a criminal case in the absence of a prosecutor, by finding the defendant guilty when no prima facie proof was presented to the court by a prosecutor, by failing to advise the defendant of her basic constitutional rights, and by failing to reduce the judgment of conviction to writing. The Commission further concludes that the judge demonstrated a lack of understanding of the differences between civil and criminal proceedings. Judge Santoyas actions in this matter
2

constituted willful violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Leonardo Santoya, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Pursuant to this Order, Judge Santoya must obtain four (4) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission desires that Judge Santoya receive this additional education in the area of criminal procedure, with particular attention given to Articles 45.101(a), 45.031 and 45.032 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Judge Santoya shall complete the additional four (4) hours of instruction recited above within sixty (60) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Santoyas responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the four (4) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Santoya shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 33.036 of the Texas Government Code, the Commission authorizes the disclosure of certain information relating to this matter to the Texas Justice Court Training Center to the extent necessary to enable that entity to assign the appropriate mentor to Judge Santoya. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 29th day of September, 2006. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Monica A. Gonzalez, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 06-0309-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION

HONORABLE JOSIE GOMEZ JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2 CRYSTAL CITY, ZAVALA COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on June 13-15, 2007, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Josie Gomez, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Crystal City, Zavala County, Texas. Judge Gomez was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Gomez appeared with counsel before the Commission on April 18, 2007, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Josie Gomez was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in Crystal City, Zavala County, Texas. On or about September 9, 2005, a criminal complaint was filed in Judge Gomez court against Erasmo Ramon, a local police officer, charging him with assault. Over the course of several weeks, Judge Gomez summoned witnesses, including the complaining witness, to appear in her office, where she met with each individual privately in an attempt to gather information pertaining to the allegations. Neither a prosecutor nor Officer Ramon was present during these meetings.

4.

5.

On or about September 19, 2005, Judge Gomez issued a summons ordering the defendant, Officer Ramon, to appear in her office at 10:00 a.m. the following day, to answer to the charge of assault. On or about September 27, 2005, Officer Ramon and his wife appeared before Judge Gomez, at which time he was shown a copy of the complaint made against him. There is no evidence that a plea was entered by Officer Ramon in the case. No other witnesses were present at this proceeding. No prosecutor was present at this proceeding. During the proceeding, Judge Gomez questioned Officer Ramon about the allegations. There is no evidence that Officer Ramon was advised of his constitutional rights, or that he knowingly waived any of those rights. On or about October 4, 2005, Judge Gomez sent a letter to law enforcement officials in which she stated that after reviewing the reports and paperwork filed in her court and interviewing some of the witnesses, she was unable to rule on the case due to lack of evidence. She then requested further investigation by police officers. In a letter dated October 7, 2005, the Sheriffs Department responded to the judge by informing her that it had completed its investigation into the charges against the defendant. On or about October 10, 2005, based upon her review of the complaint, the offense report, and her private discussions with the various witnesses in the case, Judge Gomez found Officer Ramon guilty of assault. On or about October 12, 2005, Officer Ramon received a certified letter from Judge Gomez containing a copy of the complaint against him. On that complaint the judge had made a hand-written notation indicating that he had been found guilty. The notation also stated that a $250 fine was to be paid by November 9, 2005. Through an attorney, the defendant filed an application for a writ of certiorari with the county court, but his attempts to challenge the conviction were unsuccessful because Judge Gomez never entered a final judgment in the case. The attorney also filed a motion for new trial, which Judge Gomez eventually granted on August 24, 2006. The judge also recused herself from the case at that time.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].
5

2.

3.

Canon 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A justice of the peace or municipal court judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit, nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Gomez failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a fundamental lack of professional competence in the law by (a) privately meeting with witnesses in a criminal case to discuss the merits of the allegations outside the presence of the defendant and a prosecutor, (b) conducting her own independent investigation of the allegations, (c) failing to take a plea from the defendant, (d) failing to advise the defendant of his basic constitutional rights, (e) proceeding to trial in the absence of a prosecutor, (f) finding the defendant guilty when no prima facie proof had been presented by a prosecutor, (g) ignoring the defendants right to a jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine his accuser and witnesses, and his right against self-incrimination, (h) failing to render her judgment in open court, and (i) failing to reduce the judgment of conviction to writing. Judge Gomez actions in this matter constituted willful violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Josie Gomez was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in Crystal City, Zavala County, Texas. Pursuant to the order, Judge Gomez must obtain eight (8) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to her required judicial education. In particular, the Commission desires that Judge Gomez receive additional education in pretrial and trial procedures in criminal matters, with particular attention to the constitutional rights a criminal defendant has both before and during trial, and what options are available to judges when a prosecutor does not appear to prosecute a criminal trial. In addition to this training, Judge Gomez should sit through and observe at least 2 to 3 criminal trials in a Justice of the Peace court with the mentor. Pursuant to the authority contained in 33.036 of the Texas Government Code, the Commission authorizes the disclosure of certain information relating to this matter to the Texas Justice Court Training Center to the extent necessary to enable that entity to assign the appropriate mentor for Judge Gomez in this case. Judge Gomez shall complete the additional eight (8) hours of instruction recited above within ninety (90) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Gomez responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the eight (8) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Gomez shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with

this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action with the intent of assisting Judge Gomez in her continued judicial service, as well as in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this _15th___ day of ___June____________, 2007. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Joseph B. Morris, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 06-0451-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE BOB WALL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2, PLACE 1 BROWNWOOD, BROWN COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on June 13-15, 2007, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Bob Wall, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. Judge Wall was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Wall appeared before the Commission on October 12, 2006 and June 13, 2007, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Bob Wall was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. The Burnett Case 2. 3. On or about January 4, 2005, a bench trial was scheduled to commence at 2 p.m. before Judge Wall in a criminal case involving defendant Burnett. On that same day, Burnetts attorney and the County Attorney were appearing for a hearing in a parental rights termination case taking place in another courtroom across the hall from Judge Walls courtroom. When it appeared that the CPS case would not be completed in time for either Burnetts attorney or the County Attorney to handle the Burnett case pending in

4.

Judge Walls courtroom, steps were taken to notify Judge Wall of the conflict and a request was made to reset the case. 5. Upon learning that neither Burnetts attorney nor the County Attorney were going to appear for the 2 p.m. trial, Judge Wall appointed a local attorney as Special Prosecutor in the case against Burnett and proceeded to trial in the case. In Burnetts absence, Judge Wall found her guilty of the offense and assessed a fine of $500. In his responses to the Commissions inquiry and in his testimony before the Commission, Judge Wall expressed that he often felt that the attorney for Burnett and the County Attorney did not treat him or his court with the proper respect. This disrespectful treatment, among other things, produced strong feelings of resentment especially toward the attorney for Burnett. The Snider Case 8. On or about May 26, 2005, a hearing was held before Judge Wall regarding a citation issued to Mr. Snider for allegedly violating Section 341.037 of the Texas Health and Safety Code by discharging waste water onto the ground under a mobile home. Snider was convicted of the offense, but was assessed no fine and was given additional time to comply with the law. On or about June 22, 2005, Judge Wall was notified by an officer employed by the Brown County Water District that Snider was again violating the law by discharging effluent into unapproved storage tanks. On that same day, defendant Snider received a Show Cause-Constructive Contempt summons from Judge Wall ordering him to appear in court the following day regarding his alleged violation of the court order issued by Judge Wall following the May 26 trial. Sniders attorney was notified of the contempt proceedings on June 23, the day of the hearing, but was unable to make it to court on time or to convince the court to reset the hearing. At the hearing, Snider was found in contempt for violating Judge Walls May 26 order. Snider was fined $500 for the new violation and ordered to remove the storage tanks from the property before July 1, 2005 or face a $100 per day civil penalty. Snider was also fined $100 for constructive contempt and ordered to install an acceptable septic system or face a $500 per day civil penalty. The order was subsequently appealed to the Brown County Court at Law. The West Matter 17. On or about December 9, 2004, Judge Ray West, the Brown County Judge, heard an appeal from Judge Walls decision to suspend a defendants drivers license for 180 days. Following a hearing, Judge West probated the suspension for 180 days.
9

6. 7.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

18.

19.

Several months later, the defendant appeared before Judge Wall on another offense at which time Judge Wall learned that Judge West had probated the suspension of the defendants drivers license. In response to this information, Judge Wall wrote a letter to Judge West requesting a meeting to discuss various concerns expressed by Judge Wall regarding the handling of the appeal. After Judge West declined to meet with him, Judge Wall issued a subpoena ordering Judge West to appear in his court on a date and time certain. After a meeting with the Brown County Attorney, Judge Wall withdrew the subpoena.

20.

21. 22.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. 3. 4. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law . . .. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law]. Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Wall failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law by (a) finding defendant Burnett guilty in absentia; (b) failing to provide adequate notice for the show cause hearing in the contempt case against Snider or allowing Snider the opportunity to find counsel to represent him on such short notice; (c) issuing orders and fines that he had no authority to enforce against Snider pursuant to Section 341.037 of the Health and Safety Code; and (d) issuing a subpoena to compel the County Judge to appear before Judge Wall when no case or proceeding was pending. Judge Walls actions in all of these matters constituted willful or persistent violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, the Commission concludes that based on the history of resentment that had built up within Judge Wall toward the attorney representing Burnett, Judge Walls decision to go forward with the criminal trial and find Burnett guilty in absentia when the judge knew her attorney and the prosecutor were in trial in a courtroom across the hall was a manifestation of the judges bias or prejudice against Burnetts attorney, who he felt had routinely treated him without proper respect. As a result of this resentment toward Burnetts attorney, Judge Wall effectively barred Burnett and her counsel from exercising their legal right to be heard in the criminal case. In this regard, Judge Walls

10

actions in that case also constituted willful or persistent violations of Canons 3B(5) and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(5) and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Bob Wall, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this __13__ day of ____July___________, 2007. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Joseph B. Morris, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

11

August 31, 2008

PUBLIC SANCTIONS
FY 2008
The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2008. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0251-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE BOB WALL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2, PLACE 1 BROWNWOOD, BROWN COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on October 18, 2007, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Bob Wall, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. Judge Wall was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Bob Wall was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. On or about September 30, 2005, Judge Wall provided a sworn statement to a Texas Ranger concerning Brown County Precinct 1 Constable Donnie Barnum (Barnum).

3.

According to Judge Walls statement, in late 2004, shortly after being appointed to the position of Brown County Constable, Barnum began filing traffic citations in Judge Walls court. Judge Wall contacted Barnums supervisor and advised him that he would not accept any citations written by Barnum. Judge Wall then met with Barnum personally. At that meeting, Judge Wall informed Barnum that he was dismissing the pending traffic cases that had been filed by Barnum and that he would no longer accept citations written by Barnum. In his statement, Judge Wall explained that he refused to accept any citations written by Barnum because the judge felt strongly, based on personal experiences, that Barnum was not a credible person. Judge Wall explained that before becoming a judge, he and Barnum had worked together as deputy constables in Brown County. On or about April 20, 2006, Judge Wall testified in Cause No. CR-18, 107, styled The State of Texas vs. Donnie Barnum, a removal proceeding pending before the 35th Judicial District Court in Brown County, Texas. At the trial, Judge Wall testified that he did not think constables should be writing traffic citations; that he did not think Barnum should be issuing traffic citations in Precinct 2; and that he did not believe Barnum had the temperament or judgment to be a peace officer. Judge Wall also testified that he told Barnum that neither he nor the County Attorney would prosecute citations filed in Precinct 2 that had been written by Barnum. In his testimony before the court, Judge Wall acknowledged that he did not have the legal authority to tell a peace officer not to file a complaint or citation in his court. Judge Wall added that he would continue to tell that peace officer not to file a citation in his precinct even if he did not have the legal authority to do so because it was his precinct and his right to voice his opinion about that officer. Judge Wall further acknowledged that he had allowed his personal opinion of Barnum to affect his judicial conduct or judgment by not allowing Barnum to file citations in his court and by sua sponte dismissing traffic cases involving citations that had been written by Barnum. Following the trial, Barnum was convicted of the offense of official oppression and removed from office.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law . . .. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment.

3.

Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law]. Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

4. 5.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Wall failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law by sua sponte dismissing traffic cases filed by Constable Barnum without a motion to dismiss from the prosecutor and by refusing to accept citations or complaints written by Constable Barnum in Precinct 2. Although Judge Wall may have had a valid concern about Barnums credibility as a witness, his prior relationship with Barnum and his personal opinion that Barnum lacked credibility, good judgment or the appropriate temperament for a peace officer raised legitimate questions as to the judges impartiality in cases where Barnum would be a witness. Rather than dismiss cases and refuse to accept filings, the appropriate remedy would have been for Judge Wall to recuse himself from those cases. Judge Walls actions in this matter constituted willful or persistent violations of Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2) and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2) and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Bob Wall, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 1, in Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this _13th___ day of __December___, 2007. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 06-0707-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION

HONORABLE GREGORY MIDDENTS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1 SHERMAN, GRAYSON COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 13-15, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Gregory Middents, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Sherman, Grayson County, Texas. Judge Middents was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Middents appeared before the Commission on February 14, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Gregory Middents was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1 in Sherman, Grayson County, Texas. In May of 2005, Judge Middents signed an order holding a 17-year-old student in constructive contempt of court. He sent her to jail and fined her $100. In his constructive contempt order, Judge Middents stated that the student had violated Orders of this Court without identifying the specific order violated, nor did he state how long she was to be incarcerated or when her fine was due. Although asked to do so, Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with any court documents showing that the student had been personally served with notice of a contempt hearing or that a summons, subpoena, or warrant had been issued to secure her appearance in court.

4.

5.

Although asked to do so, Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with any court documents reflecting that he issued show cause orders or equivalent legal process informing the student of when, how and by what means she was guilty of contempt. Although asked to do so, Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with any court documents substantiating his testimony that he had advised the student of her right to be represented by counsel and that the student had waived her rights before he conducted the contempt hearing. Although asked to do so, Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with any documentation or notation that a prosecutor was present at any of these proceedings, nor did he identify any testifying witnesses. Judge Middents told the Commission that the student had appeared before him previously for failing to attend school. Although asked to do so, Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with all of the court records relating to the students case. When asked if the student had been under the age of 17 at the time of her alleged offense, Judge Middents was unable to recall or provide court records supporting this fact. According to the few court records that Judge Middents did provide to the Commission in response to this inquiry, several personal criticisms about the student had been noted by the judge on the court file. In addition to the students case, between 2003 and 2005, Judge Middents held several parents in constructive contempt of court, sending them to jail and fining them $100 as well. As was true in the students case, Judge Middents constructive contempt orders in the parents cases did not identify specific court orders that they had violated, nor did the judge indicate how long the parents were to be incarcerated or when their fines were due. As was true in the students case, Judge Middents was asked to provide the Commission with court records relating to the parents cases. Judge Middents was unable to provide the Commission with court records showing that: the parents had been personally served with notice of their contempt hearings or that a summons, subpoena, or warrant was issued to secure their appearances in court; he issued show cause orders or equivalent legal process informing the parents of when, how and by what means they were guilty of contempt; he had advised the parents of their right to be represented by counsel and that they had waived their rights, before he conducted their contempt hearings; a prosecutor was present at any of these proceedings. In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Middents was unable to provide the names of the children of the parents who had been held in contempt, nor was he able to recall whether the parents had been charged with thwarting their childrens school attendance.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

According to the few court records that Judge Middents did provide to the Commission in response to this inquiry, several personal criticisms about the parents had been noted by the judge on the court files.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

2.

CONCLUSION
The Commission finds from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Middents improperly exercised his contempt authority by failing to provide the alleged contemnors with full and unambiguous notification of when, how and by what means they had been guilty of contempt. Judge Middents also failed to advise the alleged contemnors at the contempt hearing of their right to counsel, failed to admonish them about proceeding without counsel, and failed to obtain the defendants knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel before finding them in contempt and ordering their confinement in jail. Further, the judge failed to document court proceedings properly and wrote improper personal notes about the defendants in their public records. Finally, the judge did not determine if he had the legal authority to incarcerate a 17-year-old student for constructive contempt. The judges actions in failing to properly exercise his contempt authority constituted a serious and persistent failure to comply with the law, in violation of Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and a fundamental lack of professional competence in the law, in violation of Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Gregory Middents, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1 in Sherman, Grayson County, Texas. Pursuant to the order, Judge Middents must obtain eight (8) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission directs that Judge Middents receive instruction as follows: Two (2) hours of additional training concerning the courts contempt authority and proper procedures to be followed before finding a person in constructive contempt of court; Two (2) hours of additional training concerning a criminal defendants right to due process under the United States and Texas constitutions.

Two (2) hours of additional training concerning 25.093 of the TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, Parent Contributing to Nonattendance (formerly titled Thwarting Compulsory Attendance Law); and Two (2) hours of additional training concerning both 25.094 of the TEXAS EDUCATION CODE , Failure to Attend School, and Art. 45.050 of the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Failure to Pay Fine; Contempt: Juveniles.

Judge Middents shall complete the additional eight (8) hours of instruction recited above within ninety (90) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Middentss responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the eight (8) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Middents shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action with the intent of assisting Judge Middents in his continued judicial service, as well as in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this __28th__ day of ___February____, 2008.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 07-0327-MU & 07-0359-MU

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE ALLEN GILBERT MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE SAN ANGELO, TOM GREEN COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 13-15, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Allen Gilbert, Municipal Court Judge, San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas. Judge Gilbert was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Gilbert appeared with counsel before the Commission on February 15, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Allen Gilbert was the Municipal Court Judge for the City of San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas. On the morning of November 8, 2006, Judge Gilbert, while reading the local newspaper, noted an advertisement for a local gentlemans club announcing the upcoming performance of an exotic dancer with a name very similar to that of the assistant city prosecutor assigned to his court. Judge Gilbert shared the advertisement with several people employed by the city and over whom he had supervisory authority. Together, the judge and several city employees created their own flyer out of the advertisement in an effort to make a joke at the city prosecutors expense. The flyer consisted of a letter-sized copy of the original advertisement promoting the exotic dancer, along with the following captions added to the bottom of the page by Judge Gilberts court staff involved in the prank: (1) Let her take your

3.

4.

law into her hands! (2) Let her handle your case! and (3) [She] wants to prosecute you! 5. 6. 7. With Judge Gilberts tacit approval, several of these flyers were placed in public areas around the courthouse. That same morning, the city prosecutor saw the flyers as she arrived at the courthouse and began removing them from where they had been posted. According to the city prosecutor, when she inquired as to who was responsible for posting the flyers, Judge Gilbert told her that he had found the advertisement in the paper that morning and stated he could not resist. Following the meeting with the city prosecutor, Judge Gilbert carried an unknown number of the flyers to the headquarters of the San Angelo Police Department, where he posted at least one of the flyers on a door, and left a second one with a senior officer. The city prosecutor, having been told that the flyers had been posted at the police department, proceeded to that building where she observed Judge Gilbert as he was leaving. When the city prosecutor arrived at the police department, she found a dollar bill attached to one of the flyers, placed there by someone at the department, not Judge Gilbert. She removed the offending flyer. That afternoon, the city prosecutor accompanied Judge Gilbert and another court employee to Mertzon, Texas, where Judge Gilbert was to preside over the court docket for that city. Upon arriving in Mertzon, Judge Gilbert shared the story of the flyers with court personnel. Additionally, Judge Gilberts employee informed those present that an additional comment had been considered for the poster, to wit: She wants to beat your case, or words to that effect. On November 11, 2006, Judge Gilbert was placed on paid leave by the San Angelo City Council, pending an investigation into the incident. On December 5, 2006, the city council voted to suspend Judge Gilbert without pay for two weeks, finding that he had violated the citys policy against sexual harassment and citing his bad judgment and irresponsible behavior in the matter. The incident described above received local media attention.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part, A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity . . ..

2.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Gilbert failed to comply with the law when he violated the citys policy against sexual harassment by either creating or allowing his court staff to create and post the offending flyers in public areas in and around the courthouse, where he knew the city prosecutor and her colleagues would observe them. The Commission further finds that Judge Gilberts treatment of the city prosecutor, an attorney who regularly appeared in his courtroom, demonstrated more than a mere lapse of judgment. As a public official charged with upholding the honor and integrity of the judiciary, Judge Gilbert knew or should have known that his behavior was irresponsible, lacked dignity, and would be perceived as offensive, disrespectful, and discourteous to the attorney and others. In light of this, the Commission finds that Judge Gilberts conduct in this matter constituted a willful violation of Canons 2A and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Allen Gilbert, Municipal Court Judge, San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this __3rd__ day of ____April______, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

10

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0501-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE HECTOR LIENDO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1, PLACE 1 LAREDO, WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 12-14, 2007, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Hector Liendo, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, in Laredo, Webb County, Texas. Judge Liendo was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Hector Liendo was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, in Laredo, Webb County, Texas. On or about September 2, 2006, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Judge Liendo was stopped by a Texas Department of Public Safety officer for driving in an erratic manner and over the speed limit. During the traffic stop, Judge Liendo identified himself to the officer as being a judge and repeatedly referred to his official position in an effort to dissuade the officer from arresting him. At one point, Judge Liendo told the officer that he was ruining his career. Judge Liendo was given a series of field sobriety tests, including a portable breath test, which registered the judges immediate blood alcohol content at .18%, or more than twice the legal limit of .08%. According to the arresting officer, Judge Liendo failed the field sobriety tests and refused to answer certain questions.
11

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Judge Liendo later declined to provide a breath specimen which could be used as evidence in court resulting in his drivers license being suspended for 6 months. In his response to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Liendo admitted that prior to the arrest, he had consumed four (4) beers at a LULAC function. A few days after the incident, Judge Liendo issued a public apology for his behavior that night. Judge Liendo accepted a pre-trial diversion program offered by the prosecutor, which included conditions that he perform community service and attend classes related to the dangers of driving while intoxicated. Judge Liendos September 2, 2006 arrest received local media attention. RELEVANT STANDARDS

10.

1.

Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that any Texas justice or judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in relevant part, that: A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. ********************************** CONCLUSION

2.

The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Liendos conduct on the night of September 2, 2006, cast public discredit upon the judiciary and administration of justice in violation of Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The Commission further concludes that Judge Liendos repeated attempts to use his position as judge in order to escape the consequences of his actions constituted willful and persistent violations of Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. **********************************

In condemnation of the conduct violative of Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution and Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct recited above, it is the Commission' decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Hector s Liendo, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place 1, Laredo, Webb County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody
12

the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this _7th___ day of ___April____, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0087-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE FRED BROCKWELL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 3 DEL RIO, VAL VERDE COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting in Austin, Texas, on February 13-15, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Fred Brockwell, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Del Rio, Val Verde County, Texas. Judge Brockwell was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Fred Brockwell was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3 in Del Rio, Val Verde County, Texas.

13

2.

On or about July 19, 2006, the Commission ordered Judge Brockwell to obtain an additional twenty (20) hours of judicial education due to his failure to comply with that requirement for fiscal year 2005. Pursuant to the Commissions Order, the judge was to have completed the required education by December 31, 2006. Prior to the December 31, 2006, deadline, Judge Brockwell requested and was granted an extension of time to obtain the ordered education. In July of 2007, Judge Brockwell was contacted by the Commission regarding his failure to comply with the Order. By letter dated July 13, 2007, Judge Brockwell acknowledged that he had only completed six (6) of the twenty (20) hours of judicial education required by the Commissions Order. The judges failure to comply was reported to the Commission in August of 2007. In October of 2007, the Commission initiated a complaint against the judge for his failure to cooperate. In his written response to the Commissions most recent inquiry, Judge Brockwell confirmed that despite the numerous extensions of time granted by the Commission he still had not completed the remaining fourteen (14) hours of judicial education pursuant to the Commissions July 2006 Order. Judge Brockwell is in compliance with the required judicial education for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that any Texas judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties. Section 33.001(b)(5) of the Texas Government Code provides that a judges failure to cooperate with the Commission constitutes willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judges duties. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. . . .

2.

3.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Brockwell willfully and persistently failed to comply with the Commissions July 2006 Order by not obtaining the remaining fourteen (14) hours of judicial education that he had missed in fiscal year 2005. The judges conduct in this matter constituted willful and persistent violations of Canon 2A, Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, and Section 33.001(b)(5) of the Texas Government Code.

***************************
14

In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution and Section 33.001(b)(5) of the Texas Government Code, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Fred Brockwell, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Del Rio, Val Verde County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the __7th___day of April , 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

15

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0384-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE GARY GEICK JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1, PLACE 2 ROSENBERG, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on April 16-18, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Gary Geick, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 2, in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, Texas. Judge Geick was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Geick was invited to appear before the Commission to give testimony, but declined to appear. In lieu of an appearance, Judge Geick filed supplemental information for the Commissions consideration. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Gary Geick was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 2, in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, Texas. On or about December 18, 2006, William Fuller (Fuller) attempted to file a forcible detainer (eviction) case in Judge Geicks court, but was advised by the judges staff that Judge Geick had a policy of not accepting eviction filings during the latter part of the month of December. Judge Geicks staff advised Fuller that he could file his eviction action in the other justice of the peace court in the precinct or, alternatively, return on January 2, 2007, when Judge Geicks court would resume accepting eviction filings. In his response to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Geick acknowledged that in the past, he did not accept eviction filings during the latter part of the month of December, and had not done so since he first took the bench approximately twenty years ago.

3.

4.

16

5.

Judge Geick explained that he refused to accept eviction filings during late December because he did not want to kick someone out of their home at Christmas. Judge Geick further explained that he routinely takes a vacation during part of the month of December, and he believed that if he accepted eviction filings prior to his vacation, he would not be able to dispose of them in a timely manner. Judge Geick stated that he and his staff would therefore meet on an annual basis to determine the last date on which they would accept eviction filings in December, and the first date on which they would resume accepting such filings upon the judges return from his vacation. According to Judge Geick, he instructed his court staff to advise landlords wishing to file eviction cases during this period to file in the other justice of the peace court in the precinct or, alternatively, wait until his court began accepting filings again in January. Judge Geick stated that his court staff only refused to accept eviction filings during this period, and would accept all other filings from litigants during this time. After Fuller reported his concerns about the judges refusal to accept eviction filings in December to a reporter for the Fort Bend/Southwest Star, Judge Geick made statements to the local media defending his practice, declaring that for the last twenty years he had not accepted eviction filings when it gets close to Christmas, and that [n]o matter what, he did not intend to do so for the next four years of his term of office. Judge Geick concluded his statements to the media by noting that he had surveyed 86 defendants waiting for their cases to be heard in his court and that all of them supported his position, and that he believed most people will support my position. Judge Geick advised the Commission that he now realizes that his practice was not authorized by law, and he has therefore instructed his staff to accept all evictions cases from landlords regardless of the date on which they are filed.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

2.

3.

17

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Geick failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law by engaging in a twenty-year long practice of refusing to accept eviction filings from landlords for part of the month of December. Although Judge Geick may have had good intentions for creating this policy, the Commission found no statutory or other legal authority that would allow a judge to simply refuse to accept cases for filing over which his court has jurisdiction and venue. Moreover, such a policy is unwarranted given that the law provides several options that Judge Geick could utilize when he is absent from the court for extended periods of time, such as requesting that the county appoint a qualified temporary justice to hear the judges cases in his absence, or arranging to transfer cases to another justice court or to have another justice in his precinct or county preside over hearings in his court. Public confidence in the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary demands that every judge uphold the laws of this State. Allowing public clamor or a fear of criticism to influence, or appear to influence, a judge to adopt or enforce a policy or practice that is not otherwise sanctioned by law undermines the publics trust and confidence in our judiciary. In light of this, the Commission finds that Judge Geicks conduct in this matter constituted willful and persistent violations of Canons 2A, 3B(1) and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(1) and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Gary Geick, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 2, in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 5th day of May, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

18

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0716-DI

PUBLIC WARNING
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE HAL MINER 47 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AMARILLO, POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS
TH

During its meeting on April 16-18, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Hal Miner, Judge of the 47th Judicial District Court, in Amarillo, Potter County, Texas. Judge Miner was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Miner appeared before the Commission, with counsel, on April 18, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. 4. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Hal Miner was Judge of the 47th Judicial District Court in Amarillo, Potter County, Texas. On or about December 14, 2006, Judge Miner attended a Christmas party hosted by a local law firm. Guests at the annual party included law enforcement officers, court staff, probation department employees, attorneys, and other judges. According to at least two witnesses, soon after arriving at the party, Judge Miner approached a female attorney and slapped her buttocks.

The 47th Judicial District Court covers Potter, Randall and Armstrong Counties.
19

5. 6.

The judge approached the attorney a second time, where his hand made contact with her buttocks again. According to one of the witnesses, the judge also joked about the attorneys height, commenting to the effect that he had intended to slap her on her back, but her ass was at hand level. When asked to either verify or refute the testimony concerning his comments to the attorney, Judge Miner told the Commission that he could not recall if he had made those remarks. Both witnesses stated that they were dismayed, surprised, and disappointed by the judges conduct, which they observed to have been clearly unwelcome by the attorney at the time. At least one of the witnesses stated that he discussed the incident with other guests at the party and with his colleagues at work the following day. Although Judge Miner was unable to recall the specifics of the incident in question, he did acknowledge in his written and oral testimony before the Commission that [the allegations] are basically true except that I did not think it would be offensive to her. Judge Miner described his actions as being spontaneous and directed at a person that I have the highest professional and personal respect for. Judge Miner explained that the attorney in question regularly appears before him and used to serve as a prosecutor assigned to his court. The attorney, who did not file the complaint against the judge and was unhappy that one was filed, informed the Commission that she had met with Judge Miner privately to express her feelings about the incident, and now considers the matter closed. In a subsequent statement provided to the Commission, the attorney testified that she could understand why those who observed the judge touching her buttocks at the party might misinterpret the contact and be offended. The attorney went on to defend Judge Miner by stating that she herself was not offended by his conduct because of who I am and how I handle myself, and because of her long-term professional relationship with the judge.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

RELEVANT STANDARD
1. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for a willful violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, or for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Miners undignified and offensive behavior at the Christmas party brought public discredit upon the judiciary. Although Judge Miner stated that he did not believe the
20

attorney would be offended when he touched her buttocks in front of their colleagues and other guests attending the party, and despite the attorneys later protestations that she was not offended by the judges conduct, those individuals who witnessed the intimate contact between a judicial officer and a female attorney who regularly practices before his court found the conduct to be embarrassing and improper, and discussed the unpleasant incident with other members of the legal community in the days and weeks following the party. The Commission concludes, therefore, that Judge Miners actions in this matter constituted a willful or persistent violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. ******************************* In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING th AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Hal Miner, Judge of the 47 Judicial District Court, Amarillo, Potter County, Texas. Pursuant to this Order, Judge Miner must complete an eight (8) hour course covering the topics of gender sensitivity and sexual harassment, which course shall be approved in advance by the Commission. Such instruction shall be in addition to the judges required judicial education for the fiscal year. Judge Miner is hereby directed to complete the additional education recited above within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Order. It is Judge Miners responsibility to schedule and complete the additional education, at his own expense, and to provide proof of completion, along with the Respondent Judge Survey, to the Commission within ten (10) days following the conclusion of the training. Failure to complete the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 14th day of May, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

21

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0668-CC

PUBLIC WARNING
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE BRENT KEIS COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on April 16-18, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Brent Keis, County Court at Law No. 1, in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. Judge Keis was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Keis appeared before the Commission, with counsel, on April 16, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Brent Keis was Judge of the County Court at Law No. 1, in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. On or about April 16, 2007, Nuru Witherspoon (Witherspoon), an AfricanAmerican attorney from Dallas, appeared in Judge Keiss court with his clients, David and Toni Goodman, who were the plaintiffs in a personal injury action being defended by State Farm Insurance Company. After Witherspoon approached the bench and introduced himself, Judge Keis inquired as to the correct pronunciation and origin of Witherspoons first name.

3.

22

4. 5.

Witherspoon advised the Judge that his first name, Nuru, was of African origin, but that he was from Georgia. This information caused Judge Keis to attempt to engage Witherspoon in a conversation about the transportation of enslaved Africans to the Americas in what is referred to as the Middle Passage. Judge Keis also explained the theory held by some that the Middle Passage experience had the effect of causing the death of Africans unable to cope with the hardships of the voyage and leaving only the stronger, more capable Africans surviving, the resulting effect being the athletic superiority of many of todays African-Americans. Witherspoon did not engage in the Judges discussion of the Middle Passage or any other subject. Following his failed attempt to engage Witherspoon in a conversation about slavery, Judge Keis proceeded to review photographs of the automobile involved in the case, observing that there appeared to be very little physical damage to the Goodmans vehicle. Judge Keis inquired about the injuries suffered by Toni Goodman and learned that there appeared to be no objective medical evidence of injury, meaning that the injury was what is commonly referred to as a soft tissue injury. This type of soft tissue injury case is known in Tarrant County as a MIST case (Motor vehicle Incident Soft Tissue injury). Learning of the amount of money being offered to the plaintiff by State Farm, Judge Keis told Witherspoon that he considered the offer to be very good in light of the lack of damage to the automobile and the soft tissue type of injury suffered by Mrs. Goodman. Thereafter, the parties entered into settlement negotiations. When the negotiations appeared to be at an impasse, Judge Keis delivered what he refers to as his standard MIST talk. According to Judge Keis, the MIST talk is an explanation to litigants of the risks associated with submitting MIST cases to a jury in Tarrant County. Its purpose is to encourage a careful and thoughtful settlement discussion between the parties in light of the facts of the case and the history of jury trial verdicts observed by Judge Keis during his tenure on the bench in Tarrant County. As part of the MIST talk, Judge Keis explained to Witherspoon and his clients the relative effectiveness of verbal, visual and documentary evidence in jury trials and the history of awards by Tarrant County juries in cases similar to theirs. Judge Keis went on to explain that he was a Republican, and that juries in Tarrant County are predominantly made up of Republicans. Using a gambling analogy relating to the spin of a roulette wheel, Judge Keis concluded his MIST talk by telling Mrs. Goodman that if she wanted to bet on black, she could proceed to trial. Neither the attorney for State Farm nor Witherspoon requested that Judge Keis give the MIST talk.
23

6.

7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

Although Witherspoon had requested the trial setting and had announced ready for trial that morning, there were certain evidentiary and procedural challenges that first needed to be resolved, including Witherspoons late filing of medical records affidavits and the apparent absence of a witness list identifying medical professionals who would be called to testify on his clients behalf. There is no evidence before the Commission as to whether or not the Goodmans were aware of any procedural or evidentiary issues potentially jeopardizing their case. After Judge Keiss failed attempt to engage Witherspoon in a discussion about slavery and the Middle Passage, and the Judges MIST talk, the Goodmans opted to settle with State Farm rather than go to trial. At the time, Witherspoon expressed no objection to or concern about the Judges discussions of slavery, the Middle Passage, or the MIST talk. However, in a videotaped statement obtained by the Commission on March 11, 2008, in lieu of his appearance before the Commission, Witherspoon testified that although he did not express it at the time, he nevertheless found it shocking when Judge Keis, whom he had never met before, attempted to discuss the Middle Passage and theories about the slave trade with him prior to the commencement of trial. Witherspoon went on to explain that even though his instinct was to get out of here, the reason he took no action against Judge Keis at the time was because he was more focused on his clients interests than his own feelings about the Judges comments. However, after describing the incident to his colleagues in the legal community, Witherspoon eventually filed a complaint against Judge Keis with the Commission. Judge Keis soon became the subject of widespread negative media attention and public criticism over this event after a fellow lawyer and friend of Witherspoon sent a copy of Witherspoons complaint to the local media. In a statement to the media, Witherspoon remarked that it would be a stretch to describe Judge Keiss discussion about slavery, the Middle Passage and theories about the effect of that event on African-American athletes, as being racist. Witherspoon went on to state that while he had developed a thick skin over the years and did not consider himself to be overly sensitive, his clients were the ones offended by the judges comments and who felt they were not going to get a fair trial in front of this judge. David Goodman also spoke to the media, describing that he and his wife felt they had been forced to settle by a hostile court situation. In an affidavit submitted to the Commission on March 12, 2008, Mr. Goodman reiterated his belief that the judge, through his comments to Witherspoon and the MIST talk, had improperly forced them into settling for far less than what they were entitled to receive. Following the media reports, Judge Keis recused himself from the Goodmans case, as well as from all cases involving Witherspoons firm.

20.

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

24

30.

In his written and live testimony before the Commission, Judge Keis acknowledged that he did discuss the Middle Passage with Witherspoon, but explained that he did so in an effort to make Witherspoon, an out-of-town lawyer, feel comfortable and relaxed in the Judges courtroom. Having learned that the origin of Witherspoons first name was of African origin, Judge Keis explained that he believed a conversation about the historical events of the slave trade and the Middle Passage might be of interest to Witherspoon and would encourage the out-of-town attorney to talk about himself, his interests and his case. Describing his comments to Witherspoon as a welcoming, friendly conversation with counsel, Judge Keis elaborated by stating that when attorneys are appearing in his court for the first time, he devotes a great deal of time and effort to make them feel comfortable and to allay any fears of being hometowned. According to Judge Keis, in his opinion, the statements he made were not racist, biased, insensitive, inappropriate, undignified, discourteous, [or] absurd, nor did they creat[e] an environment that was hostile to the plaintiffs or their counsel. In support of his testimony before the Commission, Judge Keis provided copies of affidavits, letters and emails from several attorneys who regularly practiced in his court, all of whom extolled the Judges moral character, judicial demeanor, reputation for fairness, the manner in which the MIST talk is given, and the benefits of the MIST talk. The Commission also received an unsolicited letter of support for the Judge from a local attorney who explained that in his experiences practicing before Judge Keis, he has never seen the Judge exhibit racist behavior. Several local attorneys also appeared before the Commission on behalf of Judge Keis to praise the Judges judicial demeanor and his reputation for fairness. At the conclusion of the videotaped statement presented to the Commission in lieu of his appearance, Witherspoon described how such comments from a judge in the courtroom might have a chilling effect on the litigants, creating this sense that you cant get a fair shot when you walk into the courtroom, and leaving one with the perception that the judge has already made up his mind before the case has been presented.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36. 37.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Canon 3B(6) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex,

2. 3.

25

religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status 4. Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Keis made an inartful and insensitive attempt to engage Witherspoon in a discussion about slavery, the Middle Passage, and the possible effect of that event on todays African-Americans. Because the incident did receive widespread media attention, some members of the public reached the conclusion, perhaps mistaken, that the judge harbored a bias or prejudice against Witherspoon on the basis of the attorneys race. Although Judge Keis insists that he did not intend his comments to be racially insensitive or offensive, it is clear that his remarks were inappropriate in the setting in which they occurred, and that they could easily be misinterpreted by anyone unfamiliar with the Judge. The Commission notes that many members of the Tarrant County legal community have come out in support of Judge Keis and his use of the MIST talk as an admirable way to encourage both parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. While the MIST talk may be an effective case management tool, the Commission finds that the judges unsolicited discussion of the facts, evidence, and apparent value of the Goodmans case in an effort to encourage settlement created, in the minds of the Goodmans, an atmosphere that was coercive and intimidating. Moreover, by injecting both race and politics into the case, Judge Keis created a legitimate concern in the minds of the Goodmans and their attorney about the impartiality of the court regarding the merits of their case. When taken together, the MIST talk and the judges earlier remarks to Witherspoon about slavery and the Middle Passage had a chilling effect on the efforts of Witherspoon and his clients to have their case determined on its own merits. In the end, regardless of the perceived strengths or weaknesses of the Goodmans case, Witherspoon and his clients were entitled to an impartial judge and Judge Keis had a duty to afford them the right to be heard according to law. The Commission finds that Judge Keiss actions in this matter violated Canons 3B(5), 3B(6), and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The Commission notes that the character references provided by Judge Keis in support of his defense to the allegations have been taken into account in determining the appropriate discipline to impose in this case. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 3B(5), 3B(6), and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Brent Keis, County Court at Law No. 1, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. Pursuant to this Order, Judge Keis must complete an eight (8) hour course covering the topics of racial sensitivity and diversity, including the perceptions of
26

litigants and their counsel regarding comments made by and with the apparent authority of a Trial Judge. Such course shall be approved in advance by the Commission and shall be in addition to the judges required judicial education for the fiscal year. Judge Keis is hereby directed to complete the additional education recited above within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Order. It is Judge Keiss responsibility to schedule and complete the additional education, at his own expense, and to provide proof of completion, along with the Respondent Judge Survey, to the Commission within ten (10) days following the conclusion of the training. Failure to complete the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 14th day of May, 2008.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY _________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

27

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-0455-MU

PUBLIC ADMONITION
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE LYNDA LAWLESS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE MARLIN, FALLS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18-20, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Lynda Lawless, Municipal Court Judge for the City of Marlin, Falls County, Texas. Judge Lawless was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Lawless appeared with counsel before the Commission on June 20, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Lynda Lawless was Municipal Court Judge for the City of Marlin, Falls County, Texas. Court records show that on January 31, 2006, Joan Barganier had numerous citations pending against her, including a speeding citation issued in June 2005, and citations for failure to vaccinate her dogs and for allowing her dogs to run at large, issued in December 2005. Although Barganier had been notified by the animal control officer to appear in municipal court on January 31, 2006, to answer the charges relating to her dogs, she failed to appear in court on that date. On or about January 31, 2006, without a prosecutor present, Judge Lawless questioned several witnesses concerning the citations issued to Barganier
28

3.

4.

regarding her dogs. The judge reviewed the evidence presented by the witnesses and discussed possible courses of action, including removing the wild dogs from the property and euthanizing them. 5. At the conclusion of this proceeding, although no judgment had been entered against the defendant, Judge Lawless issued capias pro fine warrants for Barganiers arrest on the speeding citation and for her failure to appear on that charge. Judge Lawless also issued a seizure order for Barganiers dogs, which included an order requiring Barganier to appear for a hearing on February 7, 2006. On February 2, 2006, Judge Lawless issued arrest warrants against Barganier for the outstanding citations relating to her failure to vaccinate her dogs and for her failure to appear on those charges. None of the warrants was served on Barganier. On February 7th, Barganier appeared in Judge Lawless court. Those present at the February 7th hearing included the chief of police, the court clerk, and the animal control officer, who had provided the probable cause affidavit for the warrants issued against Barganier. As was the case on January 31st, no prosecutor was present for the proceedings. Because Judge Lawless was home due to illness, the court clerk contacted the judge by telephone to set up a telephonic hearing. The animal control officer went to Judge Lawless home to deliver copies of the paperwork relating to the cases. The court clerk then handed the police chief the warrants previously issued against Barganier, and instructed the officer to execute the warrants and take Barganier to jail if she did not pay the fines and enter a plea of guilty in all of the cases. No written plea regarding any of the outstanding citations against Barganier was found in the courts files; however, Barganier testified that she informed the judge over the telephone that she was not guilty, and that she wanted a jury trial, a copy of all the complaints and evidence being used against her, and an opportunity to question the witnesses. According to Barganier, these requests were ignored by the judge. While on the telephone with Judge Lawless, Barganier was questioned by the animal control officer as to her ownership and care of the dogs in question. Thereafter, Barganier was instructed that if she did not promptly remove the dogs from the property and if she permitted the dogs to continue to live on the property, they would be seized and destroyed by the animal control officer. According to Barganier, she was led to believe from the proceedings that her only recourse was to pay the accumulated fines in the total amount of $5,160.00, or be taken to jail. Faced with no other options, Barganier paid all of the fines to avoid arrest and jail.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

29

20.

Judge Lawless acknowledged that no written judgment was signed or noted on the docket in these cases. The only record that the cases had been disposed was the receipt given to Barganier for payment of the fines.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. 3. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law . . .. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law]. Canon 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A justice of the peace or municipal court judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit, nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Lawless failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a fundamental lack of professional competence in the law by, and not limited to: (a) conducting the January 31, 2006, proceeding without a prosecutor; (b) conducting the February 7th proceeding over the telephone and without a prosecutor; (c) discussing the merits of cases with complaining witnesses outside the presence of the defendant and/or a prosecutor; (d) issuing capias pro fine warrants without a judgment against the defendant; (e) coercing the defendant to pay all fines instanter with the threat of arrest and jail for entering a plea of not guilty; (f) failing to announce or render her judgments in open court; and (g) failing to reduce her judgments to writing. Judge Lawless actions in this matter constituted willful or persistent violations of Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(2) and 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Lynda Lawless, Municipal Court Judge, in Marlin, Falls County, Texas. Pursuant to the order, Judge Lawless must obtain four (4) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to her required judicial education. In particular, the Commission directs that Judge Lawless receive instruction in the following areas: appearance bonds, warrants, class C misdemeanor pre-trial and trial procedures, and record-keeping. Judge Lawless shall complete the additional four (4) hours of instruction recited above within ninety (90) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Lawless responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education.

30

Upon the completion of the four (4) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Lawless shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action with the intent of assisting Judge Lawless in her continued judicial service, as well as in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 1st day of July, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

31

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0073-MU

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE HECTOR DE PENA, JR. ASSOCIATE MUNICIPAL JUDGE CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on August 13-15, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Hector De Pena, Jr., Associate Municipal Court Judge, Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas. Judge De Pena was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. By letter dated July 8, 2008, Judge De Pena was offered an opportunity to appear before the Commission, but declined to respond to the Commissions invitation. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Hector De Pena, Jr., was Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas. According to a complaint filed by the city attorney, several female detention officers claimed that at various times in 2007, Judge De Pena had made sexually inappropriate comments to them, or made unwanted physical contact with them. According to the women, the alleged conduct took place at various locations, and was directed to the women individually. The citys human resources officer interviewed the women and other witnesses, and compiled a report dated September 10, 2007. According to the affidavit of the primary complainant, a detention officer, on February 14, 2007, Judge De Pena asked her about her marital status, and then suggested that the two of them run away.

3. 4. 5.

32

6.

The detention officer also stated that Judge De Pena occasionally hugged her and rubbed her shoulders, without her consent, and would refer to her as sweetheart, darling or gorgeous. The complainant further stated that Judge De Pena once forcibly kissed her in the hallway of the detention center, without her consent. She stated that on another occasion Judge De Pena approached her at work and commented that he was there to sexually harass her, and then began to massage her shoulders, without her consent. Finally, the woman stated that on or about August 17th or 18th, 2007, Judge De Pena made unwanted contact with her by touching her back and waist while telling her: Just remember, I love you. A second officer stated in her affidavit that Judge De Pena would sometimes refer to her as sweetheart, darling or gorgeous. This officer said that the judge would occasionally touch or hug her, without her consent, and that in July 2007, he touched her right breast while attempting to hug her without her consent. A third officer stated in her affidavit that Judge De Pena once kissed her on the forehead, without her consent, and that he would refer to her as darling and sweetie. The fourth officer stated in her affidavit that in June 2007, Judge De Pena greeted her by saying Hey Sexy. This officer also stated that Judge De Pena would occasionally rub her shoulders, and that he once kissed her on the cheek; however the officer said that she did not find the judges behavior to be offensive or threatening. In his written responses to the Commissions inquiry, Judge De Pena admitted that he probably did call one of the officers by pet names and that he probably did rub her shoulder occasionally. He also acknowledged that he referred to another female officer as sexy on one occasion when she came to work well dressed and manicured. The Commission was advised by city officials that in February 2005, a similar complaint had been made against Judge De Pena by a court administrative assistant, for which the judge had received a warning. The City of Corpus Christis written policy issued to all city employees prohibits sexual harassment at all levels of City employment. According to that policy, Sexual Harassment is defined, in part, as unwelcome sexual advances ... and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . The policy defines unwelcome sexual advances, in part, as verbal or physical conduct of a sexually offensive nature including unwelcome sexual flirtations, advances uninvited and unwelcome physical contact or touching, including ... hugging .

7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

33

RELEVANT STANDARDS 1. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part, A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity . . .. 2. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for a willful violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, or for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. CONCLUSION Based on the facts and evidence before it, the Commission concludes that as a public official charged with upholding the honor and integrity of the judiciary, Judge De Penas conduct toward certain female detention officers with whom he worked in his official capacity lacked the dignity and courtesy required of a judicial official and was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties. Judge De Penas inappropriate behavior towards these women constituted willful and/or persistent violations of Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. ********************************** In condemnation of the conduct which violates Canon 3B(4) and Article V, 1a(6)A of the Texas Constitution recited above, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to Judge Hector De Pena, Jr., Associate Municipal Judge, City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above is made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 29th day of August, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

34

Updated May 19, 2009

PUBLIC SANCTIONS
FY 2009
The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2009. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 05-0679-DI, 05-0776-DI, 06-0299-DI, 06-0439-DI, 06-0893-DI, AND 07-0056-DI

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
HONORABLE RICHARD W.B. RICK DAVIS FORMER JUDGE, 272ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BRYAN, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
On or about April 20, 2006, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (Commission) voted to commence formal proceedings against Richard W.B. Rick Davis (Respondent), who, at the time, was judge of the 272nd Judicial District Court, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. The initial complaints dealt primarily with allegations that Respondent had continued to pursue a personal vendetta against local attorney Laura Cass (Cass) and her former employer, Brazos County District Attorney Bill Turner (Turner), despite having been publicly reprimanded by the Commission in 2002 for engaging in similar acts of judicial misconduct. The formal proceeding was also intended to examine whether Respondent acted improperly in connection with an April 2005 grand jury that he impaneled, and its investigation of Turner, the judges political foe.

The Office of the Texas Attorney General, acting as Special Counsel for Examiner for the Commission, filed the initial Notice of Formal Proceedings against Respondent on or about September 19, 2006. The proceedings were then abated by agreement of the parties to allow the Commission to investigate and address additional allegations of judicial misconduct involving Respondents May 12, 2006 request for a Court of Inquiry to investigate criminal allegations against his 2005 political opponent, Brazos County First Assistant District Attorney, Shane Phelps (Phelps). On or about February 16, 2007, following Respondents second appearance before the Commission in response to the new complaints, the Commission voted to add the new complaints to the already-pending formal proceedings. The Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings was served on Respondent on or about June 21, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Respondent announced he would be stepping down from the bench at the end of his term to return to private practice. On August 27, 2007, a Special Master was appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to preside over the trial in the formal proceedings. In early January 2008, Respondent formally announced his candidacy for Brazos County District Attorney and resigned from judicial office. As a result of Respondents resignation, the Commission voted to withdraw the formal proceedings pending against him. By agreement of the parties, the complaints against Respondent went back before the Commission for informal proceedings on or about June 9, 2008. During its meeting on October 15-17, 2008, the Commission concluded its review of the evidence concerning the allegations against Respondent. By agreement of the parties, dated May 15, 2008, the transcript and records of the 2006 Court of Inquiry described below were submitted for the Commissions consideration and have been deemed admissible as evidence in this case. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission has entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Richard W.B. Davis (Respondent) was the judge of the 272nd Judicial District Court, Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. On March 1, 2002, the Commission issued a Public Reprimand to Respondent based upon his conduct toward Brazos County District Attorney Bill Turner (Turner), and former Assistant District Attorney Laura Cass (Cass). Respondent appealed the Commissions decision and on June 10 - 11, 2002, the case was heard de novo by a Special Court of Review duly appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas, consisting of the Honorable Justices John Boyd, Bea Ann Smith, and Sue Walker. On July 2, 2002, the Special Court of Review issued an opinion in which it affirmed the Commissions Public Reprimand and, in addition, ordered Respondent to complete eight (8) hours of mentoring and anger management training. See In Re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002). Shortly after the issuance of the Special Court of Reviews Opinion, Respondent issued a public apology to Cass. Based upon the Commissions March 1, 2002 Public Reprimand and the Special Court of Reviews July 2, 2002 Opinion, Respondent had actual knowledge that extreme retaliatory actions and disturbing tactics and inappropriate language to respond to those who might question his decisions constituted a willful violation of Canon 3B(4). See In Re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140, 147 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002).

3.

4. 5.

6.

Based upon the Commissions March 1, 2002 Public Reprimand and the Special Court of Reviews July 2, 2002 Opinion, Respondent had actual knowledge that a personal vendetta to destroy the reputation and an inability to handle appropriately the criticism that inevitably comes to every judge constituted a willful violation of Canons 2A and 4A(1). See In Re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140, 147-148 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002). Based upon the Commissions March 1, 2002 Public Reprimand and the Special Court of Reviews July 2, 2002 Opinion, Respondent had actual knowledge that us[ing] the power of his office to retaliate against someone with whom he had a personal grudge constituted a willful violation of Article V, 1-a of the Texas Constitution. See In Re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140, 148 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002). Based upon the Commissions March 1, 2002 Public Reprimand and the Special Court of Reviews July 2, 2002 Opinion, Respondent had actual knowledge that pursuing retaliatory actions was not protected First Amendment speech. See In Re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140, 149-150 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002). In the 2004 primary election, Brazos County First Assistant District Attorney Shane Phelps (Phelps) ran against Respondent. Respondent prevailed in an April 2004 runoff election. During the 2004 general election, Respondents friend and political supporter, Patrick Meece (Meece) ran against Turner. Turner was re-elected. Respondent was aware that Meece had been digging through trash dumpsters trying to find information that could be used against his political opponent, Turner. Meece had shown Respondent documents he had found and reconstructed that Meece contended could prove violations of the Texas Election Code by Turner and Respondents political opponent, Phelps. Respondent declined Meeces request for a court of inquiry, and instead advised Meece to refer the materials elsewhere. The April 2005 Grand Jury

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

Respondent knew that the Texas Ethics Commission had dismissed Meeces complaint and that the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorneys Office had likewise declined to take any action. In April 2005, deviating from his normal practice, Respondent impaneled a grand jury using jury commissioners rather than the panel method. Respondent appointed Amanda Short (Short), a client of Meeces law firm, to act as the grand jurys foreperson. In early August 2005, Respondent learned from Meece that he was going to present information directly to Short alleging that Turner and Phelps had violated the Texas Election Code during the 2004 election. After receiving the information directly from Meece, Short asked Respondent for an extension of the grand jurys term, which was scheduled to expire at the end of September. The District Attorneys Office was not informed by Short or Respondent of the request to extend the grand jury.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

In a letter dated August 18, 2005, Respondent told Short that her request was premature, and that she could renew it at a later time. Respondent did not share this communication with the District Attorneys Office and it was not made public until November 2005. On September 15, 2005, Short again contacted Respondent requesting an extension of the grand jurys term. On September 15, 2005, Respondent signed a written order extending the grand jurys term for 90 days from September 30, 2005 to December 29, 2005. Although not requested, the order also authorized the grand jury to conduct its business away from the courthouse at a location of its own choosing. The District Attorneys Office was not notified that the grand jury had been extended, or that it might be meeting in a location other than the courthouse. Despite authorizing the grand jury to meet away from the courthouse in any location of its choosing, Respondent did not take any steps to appoint a bailiff, make arrangements for a location, or take any other reasonable steps to protect the integrity or secrecy of the grand jury process or the security and privacy of the jurors themselves. None of the communications between Respondent and Short were filed with the Brazos County District Clerks office until November 14, 2005, at which time only the September 15 request and order were turned over and recorded in the minutes of the court. The District Attorneys Office was not included in, nor made aware of, the communications until November 2005. Although the grand jury term had been extended for 90 days, the District Attorneys Office was not notified or otherwise made aware of the grand jurys extended availability until approximately two (2) months after Respondent signed the September 15 order. On or about November 30, 2005, at a meeting in Meeces office, Meece informed Respondent that Meece had made arrangements for the grand jury to meet the following day, December 1, 2005, in a conference room in the building where his law office is located. Despite having been told that Meece had made arrangements for the grand jury meeting, Respondent did not question Meeces involvement in the grand jury process. Respondent did not ask any questions or take any other steps to protect the integrity or secrecy of the grand jury process or the security and privacy of the jurors themselves. Having reason to believe that the grand jury was investigating him or someone in his office, Turner sought to recuse both Respondent and the Brazos County District Attorneys Office from exercising any authority over or having any further involvement with the grand jury. In a letter to Judge Olen Underwood, Presiding Judge of the 2nd Administrative Judicial District, responding to Turners Motion to Recuse, Respondent turned over the remaining records in his possession relating to the April 2005 grand jury, to wit: Shorts August 14, 2005 request for an extension and Respondents written response placing the request in abeyance. The grand jury met on December 1, 2005, despite complaints from several of the grand jurors. At that time, Short presented the full packet of information provided by Meece. The grand jurors decided to take no action against Turner.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Respondents alleged involvement with a grand jury possibly investigating criminal charges against Turner and Phelps, as well as Respondents ongoing feud against Turner and Phelps, resulted in widespread media attention and public criticism of Respondents actions. The Courts of Inquiry

31.

Article 52.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that only a district judge, acting in his capacity as a magistrate, may request the commencement of a Court of Inquiry. In June 2003, Respondent requested that a Court of Inquiry be convened to investigate Turner. Judge Underwood appointed the Honorable Judge David Peeples of San Antonio to preside. The Court of Inquiry was convened in July 2003, but dismissed during the first day of hearings. Judge Peeples wrote a formal opinion cautioning Respondent that the extraordinary procedure of the Court of Inquiry should be used with prudence and restraint. Based upon the formal opinion issued by Judge Peeples, Respondent had actual knowledge that there was not sufficient evidence to investigate Turner, and that he had not exercised prudence and restraint in requesting the Court of Inquiry. In early 2006, in response to inquiries from the Commission regarding allegations that he improperly interfered with the April 2005 grand jury, Respondent began collecting affidavits from some members of the grand jury, and others, to defend himself against the complaints. Respondent prepared several of the affidavits himself and used his court staff to obtain signatures from the witnesses, including affidavits later described by these same witnesses as exaggerated and inaccurate. At some point, Respondent decided to use these affidavits for another purpose: to attempt to discredit his former political opponent, Phelps. On May 12, 2006, Respondent submitted a written request to Judge Underwood asking that a Court of Inquiry be convened to investigate Phelps. Respondent accused Phelps of obstructing the April 2005 Grand Jurys investigation of Phelps and Turner. Respondent attached twenty supporting affidavits to his May 12 request for the second Court of Inquiry. Four of those affidavits predated the alleged December 2005 grand jury obstruction. Three were included with the request solely to accuse Laura Cass of improper ex parte communication, and Judge Peeples of corruption and subterfuge and moral cowardice. The fourth merely repeated accusations that had been dismissed by Judge Peeples in the first Court of Inquiry in 2003. Judge Underwood appointed the Honorable Judge Cynthia Kent of Tyler to preside over Respondents second Court of Inquiry, which was convened on July 5, 2006. Tyler attorney F. R. Buck Files, Jr. was appointed by Judge Kent to prosecute the matter. After two full days of testimony and evidence, Judge Kent dismissed Respondents second Court of Inquiry. What became clear during the second Court of Inquiry is that Respondent never asked the grand jurors whether Phelps took any action to intimidate or harass them, or to otherwise hinder their investigations. Nor did he make any attempt to ascertain that the grand jurors contact with Phelps on December 1, 2005, occurred after the grand jury had decided not to pursue any action against Turner. 5

32.

33.

34.

35. 36.

37.

38.

39. 40.

41. 42.

In her written Order dated October 6, 2006, Judge Kent found that there was no credible evidence of any misconduct or violation of law by Mr. Shane Phelps. In her oral findings, which were incorporated by reference in her written Order, Judge Kent found that any reasonable person, judge or jury, listening to [Meeces] testimony would believe and find that he has a political vendetta against the District Attorneys office. Judge Kent also found that Respondents complaint against Phelps was based on mistake, false information or other similar basis, indicating a lack of probable cause to believe that Phelps had committed any offense. As a direct result of Respondents second Court of Inquiry, the cost to Brazos County was nearly $55,000.

43.

44.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article 5, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that any Texas justice or judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent violation of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, . . .willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code defines willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge' duties as including, s among other things: [a] willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct; or persistent or willful violation of the rules promulgated by the supreme court. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in relevant part, that [a] judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge . Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in relevant part, that [a] judge shall conduct all of the judges extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judges capacity to act impartially as a judge. Canon 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in relevant part, that [a] judge shall conduct all of the judge' extra-judicial activities so that they do not s interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by allowing a grand jury he had appointed to be influenced by Meece, a friend and political supporter, to seek indictments against political opponents based upon information that had already been reviewed

and rejected by more than one independent investigative agency, Respondent engaged in willful conduct that cast public discredit on the judiciary and administration of justice, damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and was inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties. Respondents conduct cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge. To the extent Respondents conduct was in furtherance of the grudges and retaliation that were the subject of his prior public reprimand, it constitutes both willful and persistent misconduct. Rather than protecting the grand jury from the external interference of someone he knew had a political score to settle, Respondent took actions that isolated the grand jury. By meeting privately with the foreperson, and then eventually extending the term of the grand jury without notifying the District Attorneys Office or any other official, Respondent deprived the grand jury of the legal advice and assistance provided by statute. Knowing that Meece had provided his materials to the foreperson making accusations against Turner and Phelps, Respondent did not provide any guidance or advice to the grand jurors, nor did he arrange for any legal advice to be provided to the grand jury in the absence of the District Attorneys Office. By authorizing the grand jury to meet outside the courthouse without appointing a bailiff, making arrangements for a location, or taking any other reasonable steps, Respondent failed to protect the integrity or secrecy of the grand jury process or the security and privacy of the jurors themselves. Respondents willful conduct in failing to protect the grand jury process and the grand jurors was inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, cast public discredit on the judiciary and administration of justice, and damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Respondents conduct cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge. With respect to Respondents failure to protect the April 2005 Grand Jury from outside influence, the Commission concludes that Respondent has willfully and/or persistently violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution; Section 33.001(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code; and Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 4A(1), and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent engaged in willful and persistent conduct when he requested a Court of Inquiry to investigate Phelps on May 12, 2006. Having actual knowledge that his previous request for a Court of Inquiry against Turner lacked prudence and restraint, Respondent nonetheless filed his 120-page request based upon affidavits that were not credible and did not constitute probable cause. Respondent prepared several of the affidavits himself and used his court staff to obtain signatures, including affidavits later described by the witnesses as exaggerated and inaccurate. By using procedures only available to a district judge, Respondent used the prestige of judicial office to further his own personal grudges and political agenda. Respondents conduct also brought public discredit to the judiciary and the administration of justice not only by publicly engaging in conduct that had already been found to be improper and unethical, but also by publishing serious and unfounded accusations against those involved in the administration of justice in the Brazos County District Attorneys Office. Respondents conduct cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge. Despite the 2002 Public Reprimand and the published Opinion of the Special Court of Review affirming it, Respondent compounded his prior misconduct by adding additional unfounded accusations against Cass, as well as baseless attacks against Judge David Peeples, in his May 12, 2006 request for the Special Court of Inquiry. By using procedures only available to a district judge, Respondent used the prestige of judicial office to further his own personal grudges and to retaliate against those involved in his 2002 Public Reprimand and the dismissal of

his June 2003 Request for a Special Court of Inquiry. Respondents conduct also brought public discredit to the judiciary and the administration of justice not only by publicly engaging in conduct that had already been found to be improper and unethical, but also by publishing serious and unfounded accusations against other judges and those involved in the administration of justice in the Brazos County District Attorneys Office. Respondents conduct cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge. With respect to his May 12, 2006 request for a Court of Inquiry and his gratuitous and baseless accusations against Cass and Judge Peeples, the Commission concludes that Respondent has willfully and/or persistently violated Article 5, Section 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution; Section 33.001(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code; and Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 4A(1), and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

***************************

In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Article 5, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, Section 33.001(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code, and Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 4A(1), and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC REPRIMAND to the Honorable Richard W.B. Rick Davis, former judge of the 272nd Judicial District Court, Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article 5, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 31st day of October, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 05-0406-DI, 05-0475-DI, 06-0471-DI, 06-0520-DI, 07-0614-DI, & 07-0701-DI

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
HONORABLE AMADO J. ABASCAL, III JUDGE, 365TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT EAGLE PASS, MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS
Background Information On December 20, 2001, Judge Amado J. Abascal, III (Abascal) filed as a candidate in the March 2002 Democratic Primary election (the Primary) for re-election to a fourth term as judge of the 365th Judicial District Court. On January 2, 2002, the last day for filing as a candidate in the Primary, a local attorney, Charles Johnson (Johnson), filed to run against Abascal. Abascal defeated Johnson on March 12, 2002, and went on to win re-election in November 2002, having no opponent in the General election. A large number of potential voters in Abascals district included members of the Kickapoo Indian Tribe, whose financial and political interests are thought to be dependent upon the ongoing success of the Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino (the Casino) located on tribal lands just south of Eagle Pass. In 2002, Isidro Garza, Jr. (Isidro) was the Tribal Administrator of the Casino. He had a long history of assisting the once-poor Kickapoo Tribe gain political and financial success, both locally and on a national level. After an unsuccessful attempt in 2000 to defeat the incumbent, Henry Bonilla, for a seat in the U.S. Congress, Isidro worked toward building a political career for his son, Timoteo Garza (Timo), who ran for Texas State Representative in 2002. In an effort to assist his son, Isidro reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign, most of which came from the Casinos operating funds. Shortly before Timo was elected state representative in November 2002, funded largely through loans from Isidro and the Casino, the Kickapoo Tribe elected new leaders, who, in turn, accused the ousted leaders of mismanagement and corruption. On December 7, 2004, a federal grand jury handed up indictments against several individuals involved in the Casinos old

The 365th Judicial District covers Maverick, Dimmit, and Zavala Counties.

regime. Among those indicted were Isidro, his wife, Martha (Martha), their son, Timo, and Lee Martin (Martin), the former general manager of the Casino. According to the indictments, political contributions from the Kickapoo Tribal leaders, and Isidro in particular, often took the form of cash payments, usually after checks written on the Lucky Eagle Casino account were cashed at the Casino. Since state law prohibits candidates from accepting more than $100 cash from a single individual in an election period1, there were allegations that many of the cash payments had been pocketed by candidates without being reported, or were reported falsely in their campaign finance reports. According to the indictments, in the weeks prior to the Primary, Isidro arranged for four payments, totaling $30,000, to be paid to one or more unnamed state judges, paying half the sum in cash and the other half in checks cashed directly at the Casino. Once the story of the indictments became publicly known, it was reported that Abascal had disclosed in his March 2002 campaign finance report that he had received 15 separate campaign contributions of $1,000 each. All but two of the 15 donors were employees of the Casino. All of the contributions were made in cash. On October 27, 2005, as a direct result of having received and reported the $15,000 in campaign donations mentioned above, Abascal was indicted by a Travis County Grand Jury for Tampering with a Governmental Record with intent to defraud or harm another (37.10(a)(1) and (5), Texas Penal Code), a state jail felony. Shortly thereafter, Abascal was suspended from the bench, with pay, by the Commission. In October 2006, Isidro, Martha, Timo and Martin entered into plea agreements with federal prosecutors, who agreed to drop remaining charges against them if they pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Isidro entered a plea to one count each of tax evasion and theft. On March 30, 2007, Abascal was indicted a second time by another Travis County Grand Jury on two counts of Aggravated Perjury, a Third Degree Felony, for allegedly lying to the October 2005 Grand Jury. On April 5, 2007, the Commission amended its Order of Suspension to include the new indictment. Abascal remained suspended with pay. At their May 2007 sentencing, Isidro, Martha, Timo and Martin suddenly renounced their plea agreements, stopped cooperating with the government, and were ordered to stand trial. On July 12, 2007, Abascal entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Tampering with a Governmental Record without intent to Defraud or Harm, a Class A misdemeanor. Abascal also agreed to pay a $4,000 fine and civil damages in the amount of $15,000 to the State of Texas. In exchange for this guilty plea, the Travis County District Attorneys Office agreed to reduce the original charge of Tampering with a Governmental Record under Section 37.10(a)(1) and (5) of the Texas Penal Code, a State Jail Felony, to the lesser-included Class A misdemeanor offense. In addition, the State agreed to dismiss the Aggravated Perjury charges. As a result of the plea to the lesser-included charge, which did not include the intent to defraud or harm, Abascals conviction of a Class A misdemeanor no longer qualified as official misconduct or a crime of moral turpitude, and, therefore, would not result in his automatic removal from the bench. Further, as part of the agreement the parties entered into an Agreed Judgment Under the Texas Election Code, Chapter 253 in which Abascal acknowledged committing civil violations of the Election Code and agreed to pay the state $15,000 as a civil

253.033, Tex. Election Code. The same restriction applies to federal candidates and officeholders under 11 CFR 110.4(c).

10

penalty. Shortly thereafter, the Commission lifted the judges suspension allowing Abascal to return to the bench.2 In October 2007, Isidro, Martha, Timo, and Martin were tried in the Waco federal court and convicted of scheming together to steal more than $2 million from the Casino and the Kickapoo tribe. Isidro and Martha were also convicted of tax evasion and other related conspiracy charges. At the trial, Abascal testified that he had received two cash payments from Isidro, a $10,000 payment on February 12, 2002 and a $5,000 payment on March 1, 2002 respectively. In February 2008, Isidro was sentenced to 235 months in federal prison, 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $500,000 in restitution; Martha was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison, 3 years of supervised release and ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution; Timo was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison, 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution; and Martin was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. Proceedings Before the Commission During its meeting on December 2-5, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge, Judge of the 365th Judicial District Court, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Judge Abascal was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Abascal appeared with counsel before the Commission on October 15, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, was Judge of the 365th Judicial District Court in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Abascals indictments, suspension from office, and subsequent plea agreement and conviction of a Class A misdemeanor described above generated widespread media attention. Abascals 2002 Primary Election Campaign 3. 4. As of January 2, 2002, Abascal reported having a total of $2,119.92 in his judicial campaign bank account. In his testimony before the October 2005 Grand Jury, Abascal acknowledged that he did not have a lot of money on hand at the start of his 2002 campaign. Abascal testified that he thought he had approximately $3,500 at the time. Upon learning that he would have an opponent in the March 2002 Primary, Abascal determined that he would need to quickly raise a large amount of money to spend on his campaign. According to witness testimony, elections in Abascals district are won based on the amount of cash payments made to campaign workers who, in turn, block-walk, hand out push-cards, bus voters to the polls, and feed the voters before or after they vote.

5.

6.

While under the first indictment and suspension, Judge Abascal was re-elected to his fifth term of office.

11

7.

Abascal immediately hired and began making cash payments to various campaign canvassers, who would block walk and hand out push cards for his campaign in Maverick, Zavala, and Dimmit Counties. Abascal also met with Isidro at the Casino to discuss obtaining the support of the Kickapoo tribe. A campaign fundraising event for Abascal was organized to take place on February 7, 2002, at the Charcoal Grill Restaurant in Eagle Pass. On February 6, 2002, Isidro and Martin issued Purchase Order #19662 for a check in the amount of $10,000, to be paid to Abascal for a Political Contribution. On February 7, 2002, Check No. 21315, in the amount of $10,000, paid to the order of Abascal, was issued from the Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino Operating Fund. According to the March 2007 Grand Jury testimony of Isidro and Martin, the $10,000 check was delivered to the Charcoal Grill Restaurant on February 7, 2002, but for some undisclosed reason was never given to Abascal. Soon thereafter, the check was cashed, without endorsement, by Isidro at the Casinos cash cage. On February 12, 2002, Martha contacted Abascal at court to confirm that Isidro would be meeting with Abascal at 9:00 p.m. that evening. During that meeting, which took place at Abascals home, Isidro presented Abascal with $10,000 in cash. According to his testimony before the October 2005 Grand Jury and before the Commission, Abascal informed Isidro at that meeting that he could not accept the $10,000 unless he received the names and addresses of the individual contributors. According to Abascal, he advised Isidro that it was illegal for him to accept contributions from corporations, and that it was illegal for him to accept contributions in excess of $1,000 from an individual or a married couple. According to Abascal, because Isidro assured him that the names and addresses of the contributors would be given to him, Abascal conditionally accepted the $10,000 and stored the cash in an armoire located in his bedroom. On March 1, 2002, Isidro and Martin issued Purchase Order #20446, for a check in the amount of $5,000, to be paid to Abascal for a Political Donation. Check No. 21888, in the amount of $5,000, paid to the order of Abascal, was issued from the Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino Operating Fund that same day, and was cashed, without endorsement, at the cash cage in the casino by Isidro on or about the same day. On March 1, 2002, Isidro and Martha delivered $5,000 in cash to Abascal at his home. According to Abascals testimony, when he conditionally accepted the cash, he reminded Isidro that he needed the names and addresses of the individual contributors so that he could report the money in his campaign finance report, which was due on March 4, 2002. Abascals testimony regarding his discussions with Isidro about the list of names was refuted by the March 2007 Grand Jury testimony of Isidro and Martha. Some time after March 1, 2002 and on or before March 4, 2002, Martha telephoned Debbie Guerrero (Debbie), one of Abascals campaign volunteers, and provided fifteen (15) names and addresses from a list prepared by Martha and/or Isidro. 12

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

These names were to become the fifteen $1,000 contributors reported by Abascal in his March 4th campaign finance report. Debbie wrote the 15 names and addresses on a yellow legal pad, separating or identifying 10 names associated with the date 2-12-02 and 5 names with the date 3-1-02. Debbie gave the list of names to Abascal, who used them to prepare his March 4, 2002 campaign finance report. Debbie and Abascal added the employment information for each of the names, as that information was not provided by Martha. On March 4, 2002, Abascal completed, signed, and mailed the campaign finance report to the Texas Ethics Commission. In that report, he identified fifteen (15) contributions of $1,000 each from different individuals. Abascal, who identified himself as Campaign Treasurer, was well-acquainted with state campaign finance laws, having been an officeholder and/or candidate for election since he served as the Maverick County District Attorney starting in 1981.3 The judges report was notarized by Manuela Rodriguez, a court employee. On March 7, 2002, Abascals campaign finance report was received in the mail by the Texas Ethics Commission. During the course of their investigation into the Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino corruption case, federal authorities interviewed 10 of the 15 contributors identified in Abascals March 4, 2002 campaign finance report. According to their testimony, not one of the alleged donors had contributed $1,000 to Abascal; however, a few of the individuals testified that they had agreed to allow Martha to use their name as a donor for a local candidate since it would not require them to actually donate any money of their own. All but two of the straw donors were employees of the Casino. Several were either related to Abascal or worked on his campaign as volunteers. Many of these donors testified that Abascal never once mentioned the receipt of the funds or thanked them for their contribution. Bank records show that Abascal did not deposit any of the cash he received from Isidro into his campaign account. According to Abascals testimony before the October 2005 Grand Jury and before the Commission, the cash remained in an armoire until after he was provided with the list of fifteen (15) names. Abascal further testified that although he may have occasionally handled the cash in order to make change, none of the cash was spent until after March 2, 2002. Abascals campaign finance reports show that in the month of January 2002, he paid campaign canvassers a total of $7,215 in cash; in the period covering February 1, 2002 through March 1, 2002, he paid the campaign workers a total of $28,775 in cash; and in

25.

26.

27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32.

33. 34.

According to the judges handwritten notes obtained by federal investigators, Abascal contacted the Texas Ethics Commission and reviewed the TEC website prior to the March 2002 primary. His notes include citations to provisions of the Election Code, including laws relating to voluntary compliance with expenditure limits and the effect on a non-compliant candidate. The judge also returned 4 checks received during the course of the 2002 election because the contribution amounts exceeded the limits allowed by law and/or the donors were not allowed to contribute by law. Finally, the TEC prepared an informative legal guide, which is posted on its website, as a resource for any candidate or officeholder.

13

the period from March 8, 2002 through March 12, 2002, he paid the workers a total of $9,480 in cash. 35. 36. According to Abascals campaign finance reports, campaign workers were paid close to $36,000 in cash between January 1, 2002 and March 1, 2002. Abascals campaign bank account records show that only $10,300 of the funds maintained in that account were applied toward the $28,775 of cash payments made to campaign workers in the February 1, 2002 to March 1, 2002 reporting period. As a result, according to Abascals own records and testimony, prior to March 2, 2002, campaign workers were paid nearly $26,000 in cash from a source of funds other than the contributions maintained in his campaign bank account. Moreover, according to Abascals testimony, that source of funds did not include the $15,000 in cash he had received from Isidro. The judge went on to testify that the source of funds used to pay the campaign workers was from cash accumulated over time from gifts from family members and other savings, which cash he maintained in a fire safe located in his home. Abascal was unable to produce any records verifying the amount of cash maintained in the fire safe. This private source of funds, which Abascal testified he had loaned to his own campaign, was not disclosed during the judges October 2005 Grand Jury testimony and was never reported in Abascals campaign finance reports as required by law.4 Abascals testimony before the Commission regarding the availability of personal funds to support his campaign was at odds with the March 2007 Grand Jury testimony of Luis Minton (Minton), the judges campaign manager. When asked about Abascals campaigns finances, Minton recalled that when he approached the judge with the idea of buying television advertising, Abascal balked at the expense, telling Minton that he simply did not have enough money, approximately $5,000, to cover the publicity that they had talked about. According to Abascals campaign bank account records and campaign finance reports, he received a total of $11,450 in contributions between January 1, 2002 and January 31, 2002, and spent a total of $12,486.22 during the same period; he received a total of $42,468.72 in contributions between February 1, 2002 and March 1, 2002, and spent a total of $43,845.72 during the same period. Although the sum of $42,468.72 in contributions reported in Abascals March 4, 2002 campaign finance report included the $15,000 in cash contributions received from Isidro, Abascal testified that he did not spend that cash until after he received the list of names and addresses on or after March 2, 2002. The $43,845.72 in reported expenditures for the reporting period covering February 1, 2002 through March 1, 2002, exceeded the amount of funds maintained in Abascals campaign account during this period by just under $15,000. Additionally, although he reported paying campaign workers a total of $9,480 in cash between March 2, 2002 and March 12, 2002, and testified that he spent the $15,000 in

37.

38. 39.

40. 41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

Sections 254.001 (Recordkeeping Required) and 254.031 (General Contents of Reports) of the Texas Election Code; 1 TAC 20.63 (Reporting the Use and Reimbursement of Personal Funds).

14

cash he received from Isidro after March 2, 2002, Abascal was unable to account for the remaining $5,000 in cash. Abascal acknowledged that he failed to report the balance as an expenditure or as cash on hand, as required by law.5 47. Abascal has never repaid himself any amount of the personal funds he loaned to his 2002 campaign.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article 5, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that any Texas justice or judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent violation of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, . . .willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Section 37.10(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code provides that [a] person commits an offense if he: knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record. Section 37.10(a)(5) of the Texas Penal Code provides that [a] person commits an offense if he: makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity. Section 253.033 of the Texas Election Code provides that a candidate may not knowingly accept from a contributor in a reporting period political contributions in cash that in the aggregate exceed $100. Section 254.001(a) of the Texas Election Code provides that each candidate and each officeholder shall maintain a record of all reportable activity. Section 254.031 of the Texas Election Code provides that each report filed under this chapter must include: detailed information about political contributions accepted by the campaign, loans made to the campaign, and expenditures made on behalf of the candidate during the campaign. Title 1, Part 2, Section 20.63 of the Texas Administrative Code requires that a candidate report any campaign expenditures from personal funds. Canon 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in relevant part, that . . . [a] judge . . . subject to the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, Tex. Elec. Code 253.151, et seq. (the Act), shall not knowingly commit an act for which he or she knows the Act imposes a penalty.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Abascal willfully and persistently violated the Texas Election Code, the Texas Penal Code, as well as Canons 2A and 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, during the March 2002 Primary Election by (a) accepting a $15,000 contribution from a single source, Isidro Garza; (b) accepting
5

Sections 254.001 (Recordkeeping Required) and 254.031 (General Contents of Reports) of the Texas Election Code; 1 TAC 20.63 (Reporting the Use and Reimbursement of Personal Funds).

15

$15,000 in cash from either a single source or $1,000 in cash from fifteen (15) individuals; (c) failing to report the alleged loan of nearly $26,000 in personal funds to his campaign; (d) failing to report the balance of approximately $5,000 allegedly left over from the $15,000 cash contribution received from Isidro. Moreover, by pleading guilty to the Class A misdemeanor of Tampering with a Governmental Docket, Judge Abascal acknowledged that he knowingly violated the law. Such conduct by a judicial officer was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties, and the media attention surrounding Judge Abascals indictments and his subsequent plea agreement cast public discredit upon the judiciary and the administration of justice, in violation of Article 5, Section 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution.

***************************
In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Article 5, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Penal Code, the Texas Election Code, and Canons 2A and 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC REPRIMAND to the Honorable Amado Abascal, Judge of the 365th Judicial District Court, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article 5, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 18th day of December, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

16

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0474-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE GEORGE BOYETT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 3 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 2-5, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable George Boyett, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Judge Boyett was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. Judge Boyett appeared before the Commission on December 4, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, Judge George Boyett was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. On January 17, 2008, while driving in College Station, Judge Boyett was cut off by a vehicle driven by a Texas A&M University student (the student), who made an improper lane change. The students action caused Judge Boyetts vehicle to run off the road. Although there was no damage to his car, Judge Boyett was upset by the incident and decided to follow the student. According to Judge Boyett, his intent was merely to have a discussion with the student, in his role as a private citizen, about her unsafe driving. Judge Boyett followed the student several blocks to her apartment complex, waited for her to park and exit her vehicle, then pulled up next to her in his car. Through his car window, Judge Boyett began speaking to the student about the incident, asking if she was aware that she had forced him off the roadway. Judge Boyett then informed the student that he was a judge, displayed a badge containing his name and judicial title as he handed her his business card, and requested that the student appear in his court the following day to continue the discussion. 17

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Boyett expressed no opinion as to whether the student may have believed that she was not free to decline the judges request to appear in his court. When the student and her father appeared in Judge Boyetts court the next day, the court bailiff escorted them into the courtroom where the judge was sitting on the bench wearing his judicial robes. The bailiff immediately took the students drivers license and handed it to Judge Boyett, who copied it on a printer that was located on his bench. The student and her father were directed to sit at counsel table while the judge remained on the bench. Judge Boyett testified that his intent was to meet with the student for the purpose of admonishing and/or disciplining her for her conduct the day before and to ensure that she understood the nature of her infraction. According to Judge Boyett, because the students father began arguing with him and questioning his authority to order the student to appear in court, he became annoyed and discussed having the bailiff issue a traffic citation to the student for making an improper lane change. At the judges direction, the citation was issued out of another judges precinct since that was where the alleged traffic violation had occurred and because the judge was a fact witness in the case. Judge Boyett testified about a similar incident in which he had followed a college student who had allegedly spun out in front of him, causing gravel to hit his windshield.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent part: A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in his official capacity and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judges direction and control.

2.

3.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Boyetts actions toward the student, which included (a) following the student to her apartment complex, (b) identifying himself as a judge, (c) requesting that she appear in his court, (d) admonishing the student from the bench while wearing judicial robes even though no case was pending before him, and (e) directing the bailiff to issue a citation to the student after becoming annoyed with the argumentative behavior of the students father, were not in compliance with the law, failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, improperly lent the prestige of judicial office to advance the judges private interests, and demonstrated a lack of

18

patience, dignity or courtesy expected of a judicial officer, in willful violation of Canons 2A, 2B, and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable George Boyett, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 18th day of December, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

***************************

19

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0687-AP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE TOM GRAY CHIEF JUSTICE, 10TH COURT OF APPEALS WACO, MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 2-5, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Tom Gray, Chief Justice, 10th Court of Appeals, Waco, McLennan County, Texas. Justice Gray was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. Justice Gray appeared with counsel before the Commission on August 13, 2008, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2007, the Commission received and investigated numerous complaints relating to the vitriolic language contained in several dissenting opinions written by Justice Gray, which opinions contained unprofessional personal attacks against the judges colleagues on the bench, Justices Bill Vance and Felipe Reyna, and against certain litigants, such as Larry Kelley, involved in cases before the Court. The increasingly acerbic opinions of Justice Gray became media fodder and were the subject of growing criticism and ridicule in editorials, on internet blogs, and at judicial conferences. Although the negative media coverage and denigration among certain segments of the legal community likely had the effect of diminishing public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and cast discredit on the administration of justice, Justice Gray acknowledged during the course of the investigation that he appreciated the problems caused by the tone of his dissenting opinions and had taken appropriate corrective measures to avoid engaging in that conduct in the future. Additionally, the Commission determined, in deference to the principle of judicial independence, that Justice Gray should not be disciplined for the content of his dissents.

20

In the course of the investigation, however, an additional complaint was received that made it evident that the internal strife within the 10th Court of Appeals, and in particular the discord between Justice Gray and his colleagues, needed to be examined and addressed due to the detrimental effect it was having on court staff.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Tom Gray was Chief Justice, 10th Court of Appeals, Waco, McLennan County, Texas. In March 2007, Justice Felipe Reyna introduced Justice Gray as the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the Republican Club of Somervel County in Glen Rose, Texas. At the conclusion of his introduction to the approximately sixty (60) Republicans attending the fundraiser, Justice Reyna told the group, Please join me in welcoming my good friend, Chief Justice Tom Gray, or words to that effect. Justice Gray began his remarks to the audience by thanking Justice Reyna for the introduction, but went on to state, Really, we are not friends. Hes never been in my home. Ive never been in his home. And furthermore, every time theres a close vote on the Court, he always votes with Bill Vance, or words to that effect. Later that evening, several attendees spoke to Justice Reyna, expressing displeasure with and apologizing for Justice Grays comments. Somervel County is one of 18 counties within the jurisdiction of the 10th Court of Appeals. Both Justice Reyna and Justice Gray are Republicans; Justice Bill Vance is a Democrat. Thereafter, Justice Gray initiated a whisper campaign against Justice Reyna by criticizing him to Republican Party leaders in the counties located within the Courts jurisdiction. Justice Gray attended Republican lunches and dinners and told party leaders somebody needs to talk to Felipe. Hes not being a good Republican, and that Justice Reyna always votes with a liberal Democrat, [Justice] Bill Vance, or words to that effect. In his response to the Commissions inquiry regarding this issue, Justice Gray said that after Justice Reyna was elected, people attending political events would ask Justice Gray about specific dissents Justice Gray had issued criticizing Justice Reyna, and Justice Gray was simply answering their questions. According to a security tape obtained during the course of the investigation, on or about June 16, 2008, Justice Gray unlocked and entered the private offices of Justice Vance without permission. In his appearance before the Commission, Justice Gray defended the unauthorized entry of Justice Vances private offices by explaining that he was searching for a file. Justice Gray acknowledged, however, that after determining that the file was not in Justice Vances office, he reviewed other papers located on Justice Vances desk. Justice Gray further testified that he has unlocked and entered the private offices of both Justice Vance and Justice Reyna in the past to look for files while the other justices were not present and had not given their permission.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

21

14. 15. 16. 17.

Following these incidents, Justice Gray never informed his fellow judges of his entry into their offices. Both Justice Vance and Justice Reyna testified that they would never enter Justice Grays private offices without permission. Justice Vance and Justice Reyna further testified that they would not have given Justice Gray permission to enter their private offices when no one else was present. Justice Vance and Justice Reyna also testified about instances when Justice Gray has treated court staff in a sarcastic, intimidating and demeaning manner, which conduct also included angry outbursts and personal attacks. Statements implying that the chief clerk would be out of a job after January 1, 2009, and efforts at other times to convince the other justices to vote in favor of firing the chief clerk and the accountant were also common. Such mistreatment was sufficient to reduce some staff members to tears and has contributed to extremely low employee morale at the Court. Justice Gray advised the Commission that since no one has complained to him directly about his treatment of court staff, he was unable to respond to the allegations. Justice Gray further explained that he has told the chief clerk and others that things would be different after January 1, 2009, and that he was referring to the tension that he would no longer experience after Justice Vance retired from the bench and Justice Rex Davis assumed office. Justice Gray denied that he intimated or suggested that anyones job was in jeopardy.

18. 19.

20.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent part: A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent part: A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in his official capacity[.]

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes, based on the facts and evidence before it, that Justice Gray allowed his acrimonious relationship with Justices Vance and Reyna to improperly influence his conduct and judgment, and in the process, failed to treat those with whom he interacted in an official capacity, including court personnel, in a patient, dignified and courteous manner. The Commission concludes that Justice Grays conduct constituted willful and/or persistent violations of Canons 2B and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2B and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Tom Gray, Chief Justice, 10th Court of Appeals, Waco, McLennan County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission.

22

The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 18th day of December, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC WARNING ISSUED AGAINST HONORABLE BRUCE PRIDDY WAS UPHELD ON APPEAL BY THE SPECIAL COURT OF REVIEW BY OPINION ISSUED MAY 18, 2009. THE SPECIAL COURTS OPINION CAN BE VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON THIS WEBSITE LISTED UNDER DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, SPECIAL COURT OF REVIEW OPINIONS.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 07-0906-DI & 08-0659-DI

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE BRUCE PRIDDY JUDGE, 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 2-5, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Bruce Priddy, Judge of the 116th Judicial District Court in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. When asked to respond to the Commissions concerns, Judge Priddy repeatedly failed to do so. When ordered through a subpoena to appear and respond to the Commissions concerns, Judge Priddy complied with

23

those orders. Judge Priddy appeared before the Commission on June 18, 2008 and October 16, 2008, and gave testimony. At the conclusion of the October 16, 2008 hearing, Judge Priddy was ordered to provide a written response to an inquiry requesting additional information that was initially sent to him following his June 18, 2008 appearance. Although he agreed to file the written response by October 31, 2008, Judge Priddy failed to do so. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Bruce Priddy was Judge of the 116th Judicial District Court in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, having assumed office on or about January 1, 2007.

CJC No. 07-0906-DI

2. On or about April 24, 2007, the Office of the Texas Attorney General (OAG), acting on behalf of the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC), filed a lawsuit in Travis County against Judge Priddy to recover delinquent civil penalties assessed against the judge by the TEC in connection with his failure to file, or timely file, statutorily required campaign finance reports while a candidate for judicial office. On or about June 13, 2007, a default judgment was entered against Judge Priddy in the total amount of $38,000.00, representing $30,500.00 in civil penalties for the campaign finance violations and $7,500 in attorneys fees. On or about August 27, 2007, Judge Priddy filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment entered on June 13, 2007. On or about October 24, 2007, the OAG, again acting on behalf of the TEC, filed a second lawsuit in Travis County against Judge Priddy to recover delinquent civil penalties assessed against the judge by the TEC in connection with his failure to file, or timely file, additional statutorily required campaign finance reports as an officeholder. After filing an answer to the second lawsuit, Judge Priddy paid the amount of civil penalties imposed against him that were the basis of that action. Judge Priddys campaign finance violations and the enforcement actions taken against him by the OAG received considerable media attention.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

CJC No. 08-0659-DI

8. On or about August 16, 2007, Judge Priddy received notice that a complaint had been filed against him (CJC No. 07-0906-DI), and was asked to file a written response to the Commissions inquiry regarding the above-referenced matters. Judge Priddy failed to respond to the Commissions inquiry. On or about February 18, 2008, Judge Priddy accepted service of a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Chair of the Commission wherein the judge was ordered to file a written response to the Commissions inquiry on or before February 29, 2008. Judge Priddy failed to respond to the subpoena. On or about April 16, 2008, the Commission initiated a new complaint (CJC No. 080659-DI) against Judge Priddy as a result of his failure to cooperate with the Commissions investigation of CJC No. 07-0906-DI.

9. 10.

11. 12.

24

13. 14. 15.

Judge Priddy was also ordered to appear before the Commission at its June 2008 meeting and provide testimony concerning the two complaints. On June 18, 2008, Judge Priddy appeared and testified before the Commission. In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Priddy stated that his failure to timely file campaign finance reports with the TEC was a mistake due to his misunderstanding of the filing requirements. Judge Priddy testified that he had received the Commissions inquiry in August 2007, but decided not to respond in writing, citing undisclosed procedural reasons. Judge Priddy acknowledged that by failing to respond to the Commissions inquiry, he had made a small problem a lot worse. Based on Judge Priddys testimony, the Commission voted to table the matters in order to obtain additional information not previously requested from the judge. On or about June 30, 2008, the Commission sent Judge Priddy additional written questions and requested a prompt, thorough and candid response to its inquiry. Again, Judge Priddy failed to respond to the Commissions written inquiry. On or about August 26, 2008, Judge Priddy was ordered by the Chair of the Commission to file a written response to the Commissions inquiry and to appear and testify before the Commission at its October 2008 meeting. On October 16, 2008, Judge Priddy appeared and testified before the Commission. In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Priddy acknowledged that he had received the Commissions second inquiry, but declined to respond due to undisclosed procedural reasons. When asked by the Chair if he would cooperate with the Commission and respond in writing to the second inquiry within two (2) weeks, Judge Priddy represented that he would comply with the Commissions request and would not require another subpoena to compel his cooperation. Based on Judge Priddys representations and agreement at that hearing, the Commission voted to table the matters in order to allow the judge the opportunity to provide the additional written information previously requested by the Commission. Judge Priddy failed to provide the additional information as agreed.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. Section 33.001(b) of the Texas Government Code defines willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge' duties as including, s among other things: failure to cooperate with the commission. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

2.

3.

25

4. 5.

Canon 4I(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall file financial reports and other reports as required by law. Canon 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge subject to the Judicial Campaign Fairness Actshall not knowingly commit an act for which he or she knows the Act imposes a penalty

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the facts and evidence before it, the Commission concludes that by ignoring the Commissions numerous requests and orders that he respond to its inquiries, Judge Priddy engaged in willful and persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and casts public discredit upon the judiciary and administration of justice in violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution and Section 33.001(b)(5) of the Texas Government Code. In addition, the Commission concludes that Judge Priddy knowingly failed to timely file campaign finance reports as required by law, in willful violation of Canons 2A, 4I(2) and 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Priddys failure to comply with the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, which resulted in civil penalties and enforcement actions to collect those penalties, also constituted willful and persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and casts public discredit upon the judiciary and administration of justice in violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

***************************
In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, Section 33.001(b)(4) of the Texas Government Code, and Canons 2A, 4I(2), and 5(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable Bruce Priddy, Judge of the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article 5, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 18th day of December, 2008. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

26

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0760-MU

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE WILLIAM V. JAMES MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE BRAZORIA, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 2-5, 2008, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable William V. James, Municipal Court Judge for the City of Brazoria, in Brazoria County, Texas. Judge James was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. 4. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable William V. James was Municipal Court Judge for the City of Brazoria, in Brazoria County, Texas. On or about January 2, 2008, Complainants 16 year-old son received a citation for failure to display a valid drivers license. On or about January 28, 2008, Complainant and his son initially appeared before Judge James to enter a plea in the case. Court records provided by Judge James indicate that the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial. Thereafter, a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2008. On or about February 14, 2008, Judge James sent a letter to the defendant in which the judge recites that the defendant had initially entered a plea of guilty at his January 28th appearance. Judge James further explains that he became upset when the defendant changed his plea to not guilty at his fathers instruction. The judge added, I would have been upset if I were you.

5.

27

6.

Judge James went on to inform the defendant that, [y]our guardian stated you wanted a jury trial which at the time I did not handle correctly. After consulting a judge in a higher court my decision is that your plea of guilty will stand as your plead [sic]. Your fine is now $210 payable to the City of Brazoria. In the letter, Judge James provides for an appeal bond in the amount of $420. Other than the February 14, 2008 letter, Judge James provided no record indicating that a written judgment had been entered in the case. In his written response to the Commissions inquiry, Judge James explained that he wrote the letter because he had been thoroughly frustrated by Complainants rude and disrespectful conduct at the January 28, 2008 appearance. The records show that the defendant appealed the case, which was subsequently dismissed.

7. 8.

9.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law . . . . Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

CONCLUSION
The Commission finds that Judge James failed to comply with the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law when he (i) failed to conduct a trial prior to finding the traffic defendant guilty and assessing a fine against him, (ii) changed the defendants plea from not guilty to guilty, and (iii) failed to enter a written judgment reflecting the decision in the case. The Commission finds that the judges conduct in this case constituted violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

********************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable William V. James, Municipal Court Judge for the City of Brazoria, in Brazoria County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 12th day of February, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

28

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 07-1056-JP

PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION

HONORABLE TONY TORRES JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2, PLACE 2 BROWNSVILLE, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 11 - 13, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Tony Torres, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 2, in Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. Judge Torres was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Torres appeared with counsel before the Commission on February 11, 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Tony Torres was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 2, in Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. On December 4, 2006, Antonio Abundiz III (Antonio) and his mother, Elvira Abundiz (Elvira), filed a small claims suit against Teodoro Sanchez (Sanchez) for damages to Elviras car after Antonio and Sanchez collided in an automobile accident. On January 15, 2007, Antonio died in an unrelated automobile collision. Despite her sons death, Elvira continued to pursue the small claims action against Sanchez. On January 25, 2007, Judge Torres set the small claims suit for trial for 2:00 p.m. on February 20, 2007. On February 20, 2007, at 12:59 p.m., Judge Torres received a letter via fax from Sandra Gutierrez, secretary for local attorney Gilberto Hinojosa (Hinojosa), asking that the trial be reset because Hinojosa was unable to attend.

3. 4. 5.

29

6. 7. 8.

No motion for continuance was included with the fax, nor had Hinojosa filed an appearance on Sanchezs behalf. Although Elvira appeared for trial at 2:00 p.m. as scheduled, Judge Torres told her that a continuance had been granted and the trial was reset to April 17, 2007. On April 17, 2007, Elvira again appeared before Judge Torres. After neither Sanchez nor Hinojosa appeared, Judge Torres entered a default judgment against Sanchez in the amount of $1,240. The default judgment was signed on April 18, 2007. According to Judge Torres testimony before the Commission, the deadline to file an appeal or grant a new trial in this case was April 28, 2007, after which time the court lost jurisdiction. On May 11, 2007, more than three weeks after Judge Torres signed the default judgment, Hinojosa filed a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. Judge Torres testified that he did sign an Order Setting Hearing at this time, but it was never sent to the parties and did not contain a new trial date. On June 11, 2007, however, without notice or a hearing, Judge Torres clerk affixed the judges signature to an Order Setting Hearing, which scheduled Elviras case for trial on July 27, 2007. According to Judge Torres, the clerk used his signature stamp in this instance without his permission and outside his presence. On July 11, 2007, at Elviras request, the matter was reset, again by Judge Torres clerk, for July 23, 2007. On July 23, 2007, Judge Torres conducted a trial as if a new trial had been granted. Elvira, Sanchez and his attorney, Hinojosa, were present. Judge Torres testified that he did not review the case file carefully and, therefore, was not aware at the time of the trial that he had not granted a new trial or that the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment had been filed after the court had lost jurisdiction. On July 24, 2007, Judge Torres signed a Take Nothing Judgment in favor of Elvira, who had been prevented from testifying at trial about the car wreck or the damage to her vehicle. In August, 2000, the Commission issued a Public Admonition to Judge Torres for violating Article V, 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution, and Canons 2B and 5(3) [now 5(2)] of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by using his name, judicial position, likeness and supporting statements in well-publicized political advertisements for reelection of the Cameron County sheriff. In June, 1996, the Commission issued a Public Admonition to Judge Torres for violating Canon 3B(8), by dismissing a small claims case with prejudice, without any cause for such a ruling, thereby denying the plaintiffs right to ever have her case heard and decided on the merits.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law . . .. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

30

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Torres failed to follow the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law, in violation of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, when he (a) failed to provide notice to Elvira or hold a hearing before ruling on Hinojosas untimely Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment; (b) failed to expressly grant or deny Hinojosas Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, but instead simply set the case for trial as if a new trial had been granted; (c) failed to review the case file prior to conducting the July 23, 2007, trial in the case; (d) conducted the July 23, 2007 trial in the case after the court had lost jurisdiction over the matter; (e) entered a second judgment in the case after the default judgment in favor of Elvira became final; and (f) prevented Elvira from testifying about the car wreck of the damage to her vehicle. In reaching this decision, the Commission has also taken into account the fact that Judge Torres has received two prior public sanctions, one of which involved similar mishandling of a small claims case.

***************************
In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Tony Torres, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, Place 2, in Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. Pursuant to the order, Judge Torres must obtain six (6) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission directs that Judge Torres receive instruction in the areas of small claims suits and related provisions in the Texas Government Code and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Torres shall complete the additional six (6) hours of instruction recited above within sixty (60) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Torress responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the six (6) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Torres shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 9th day of March, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

31

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 08-0792-JP, 08-0820-JP, 08-0821-JP AND 08-0822-JP

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE GUSTAVO GARZA JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 6, PLACE 1 LOS FRESNOS, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 11-13, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Gustavo Garza, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 6, Place 1, in Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas. Judge Garza was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Garza appeared with counsel before the Commission on February 12, 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Gustavo Garza was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 6, Place 1, in Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas. Judge Garza is also a licensed attorney who has practiced law for more than twenty-six (26) years. On or about January 22, 2008, J.V., a 14-year-old student, was charged by the Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District (the School District) with Failure to Attend School. According to court records provided to the Commission by Judge Garza, the School District also filed a separate charge against J.V.s mother and stepfather for the offense of Contributing to J.V.s Non-attendance; however, the records provided by the judge reflect that court action was taken only in J.V.s case. According to compulsory attendance notices provided by the School District before charges were filed, J.V. and her parents were warned that they will be summoned before a justice of the peace for violation of Compulsory Attendance Law where sanctions may involve court costs, fines and/or community service.

4.

5.

32

6.

The attendance notices further provided that [t]he penalties for violating [the Texas Compulsory Attendance Law] are: a. Court Costs, plus b. Up to $500 fine c. Parent may be required to attend school all day with child d. Student may be required to work on community service hours e. Student & parent may be court ordered to attend counseling/parent classes. On or about February 15, 2008, J.V. appeared before Judge Garza with her mother. J.V.s stepfather, who did not approach the bench, remained seated in the courtroom. According to a Court Proceeding Report dated February 15, 2008 (the February 15 Report), which was completed by a member of court staff, both J.V. and her mother entered a plea of no contest at this time. The courts docket sheet, which was completed by Judge Garza, also reflected that J.V. entered a plea of no contest at this appearance. According to both the February 15 Report and Judge Garzas docket sheet, J.V.s case was reset to March 19, 2008. The February 15 Report, which also contained information regarding Sanctions as per T.E.C. 25.094, further instructed J.V. to comply with the requirement to attend school without unexcused absences or tardies for the school year as appropriate. Judge Garza testified before the Commission that he granted deferred disposition to J.V.; however, no evidence was provided that the judge entered any written order of deferred disposition, probation, or other judgment in this matter. Although J.V. and her mother signed the February 15 Report, Judge Garza did not. At least one record provided by Judge Garza indicated that J.V.s mother failed to appear on March 19, 2008, and that a warrant was prepared for her arrest. No evidence was provided as to whether the arrest warrant was ever executed. On or about April 9, 2008, J.V. appeared before Judge Garza with her stepfather. According to the Court Proceeding Report dated April 9, 2008 (the April 9 Report), both J.V. and her stepfather entered a plea of guilty at this time; however, no such plea was reflected on Judge Garzas docket sheet. According to the stepfather, because J.V. was not in compliance, Judge Garza told him I need $500 or you paddle her. The stepfather went on to explain that none of the sanctions described in the attendance notices or the Court Proceeding Reports was discussed with him, and no inquiry was made as to whether he could afford to pay the $500.00. Because he could not afford to pay $500.00, the stepfather stated that he believed he had no choice but to paddle J.V., which he reluctantly did. According to Judge Garzas docket sheet, the stepfather opted discipline. At the bench, a large wooden paddle was made available to the stepfather. When the stepfather asked how many times he needed to strike J.V., Judge Garza responded, 5 times.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

33

23. 24. 25. 26.

According to the stepfather, after he completed the paddling, Judge Garza admonished him for not striking J.V. hard enough. The stepfather described the paddling, which took place in open court, as a degrading and humiliating experience. The April 9 Report, which was signed by J.V. and her stepfather, but not the court, contained the following hand-written remarks: B.O.E. 5X and Step Dad (X Soft). According to Judge Garza, the remarks B.O.E. 5X and Step Dad (X Soft) were written by a member of court staff to indicate that J.V.s stepfather used the paddle (B.O.E. or Board of Education) five times, but did so very softly. Although J.V.s fine had been discharged through the paddling by her stepfather, J.V.s case remained pending with conditions for compliance. Both the April 9 Report and the judges docket sheet entry for April 9, 2008, reflected that the case was reset to June 4, 2008. A final Court Proceeding Report dated June 4, 2008 (the June 4 Report), which was signed by J.V. and her mother, contained the hand-written comments, 100% Compliance and Pick Up Grades. Both the June 4 Report and the judges docket entry for June 4, 2008, indicated that the case was reset to September 25, 2008, more than 180 days past J.V.s plea of no contest on February 15, 2008 and several weeks into the new school year. No assessment of any fine or court costs was reflected in any of the Court Proceeding Reports, on Judge Garzas docket sheet, or in any other record provided to the Commission relating to J.V.s case. No evidence was provided as to whether J.V.s case was ever dismissed or closed. Sometime in 2007, E.G. was charged with Failure to Attend School. E.G. testified that she was sixteen (16) years old at the time the charges were filed. According to E.G., during one of her many court appearances, Judge Garza told her mother to pay $500.00 or paddle E.G. The mother chose to paddle E.G. because she did not have $500.00. According to E.G., being paddled in the courtroom was degrading and did not help her. Although E.G.s fine had been discharged through the paddling by her mother, E.G.s case remained pending. The case was reset and E.G. was required to meet various conditions for compliance. According to E.G. and Judge Garza, her case would only be dismissed after she reached 100% compliance. On or about March 7, 2008, following the appearance wherein her mother had paddled her, E.G., who was now seventeen (17) years-old, was held in contempt of court and required to serve three (3) days in the Cameron County Jail. According to E.G., she was held in contempt without a hearing, was not afforded the right to counsel, and no prosecutor was present. Although E.G. was sent to jail for failure to comply with Judge Garzas orders, no written judgment, order or other court record reflecting the assessment of a fine, court costs, or the imposition of conditions of probation was provided to the Commission.

27. 28. 29.

30.

31.

32. 33.

34. 35.

36. 37.

38. 39.

34

40.

According to court records provided to the Commission by Judge Garza, the outstanding fine of $500.00 assessed on February 22, 2007 against L.G., a twelve (12) year-old boy charged with disorderly conduct, was resolved on or about April 30, 2008, when L.G.s father paddled the boy in court. The court records indicted L.G.s father was unemployed and, therefore, could not afford to pay the fine. Court records also reflected that the mother of A.V., a fourteen (14) year-old student charged on February 9, 2007 with failure to attend school, paddled A.V. at an April 21, 2008 court appearance. A.V.s parents had been charged separately for the offense of contributing to A.V.s nonattendance, but court records indicate no action was taken against the parents in this second case. Although no plea was taken at the initial appearance of A.V. and her parents on February 16, 2007, the Court Proceeding Report reflected that conditions for compliance were imposed on A.V. and the case was reset to December 6, 2007. After the April 21, 2008 court appearance, at which time a plea of guilty was taken and the option of discipline was taken, A.V.s case was reset to June 4, 2008. Court records reflect that A.V.s mother failed to appear on June 4, 2008, and that a warrant was prepared for her arrest. No evidence was provided as to whether the arrest warrant was ever executed. In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Garza did not dispute the fact that parents of students who were charged with failure to attend school were provided the option of paying a fine or disciplining their child. However, the judge insisted that the option of discipline, which was understood by everyone to mean paddling, was a choice made by the parent, not an order of the court. Judge Garza went on to state that in cases involving failure to attend school he routinely defers the matters without a finding of guilt in order to give the students the opportunity to turn their life around, stay in school, and eventually graduate from high school. Judge Garza explained that his orders, including the imposition of any fines and/or conditions of probation, were made orally to the parents and students appearing before the court and were believed to be clearly understood by everyone. Judge Garza acknowledged that he should have issued written orders or judgments in the cases filed by the School District. When asked to explain his legal authority for allowing the option of paddling to parents, Judge Garza stated that Article 45.051(b)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the court to impose any reasonable condition in cases where deferred disposition is granted. Although Judge Garza insisted that he never ordered a parent to paddle his/her child, he did acknowledge that any condition of deferred disposition under Article 45.051 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure would have to be imposed by an order of the court. Although Article 45.051 also imposes a duty on the court to collect court costs up front when granting deferred disposition, Judge Garza acknowledged that he did not comply with that requirement.

41.

42.

43.

44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

49. 50.

51.

52.

35

53.

When asked to explain the legal authority for imposing a condition on a parent to satisfy a fine or condition of probation imposed on the student for failure to attend school, Judge Garza initially directed the Commissions attention to Section 151.001(a)(2) of the Texas Family Code, which obligates the parents to discipline their children, and to Section 9.61 of the Texas Penal Code, which provides a parent with a defense to prosecution if the force used against his or her child is justified as that term is defined under that Chapter. Ultimately, Judge Garza was unable to identify any legal authority that imposed a legal responsibility on the parent to satisfy the payment of a fine imposed against the student for the offense of failure to attend school or that permitted a parent to paddle a child as a condition of probation imposed against the student for the offense of failure to attend school. Judge Garza did testify that a parent charged with the offense of contributing to a students non-attendance could be fined or required to comply with conditions of probation under Article 45.051, but acknowledged that this did not occur in any of the cases presented to the Commission. Judge Garza agreed that the paddling conducted in open court was embarrassing for the students and their parents; however, it was his opinion that any lack of order or decorum in the courtroom caused by this practice was outweighed by the positive results, including reduced filings of truancy cases by the School District, to the community as a whole. Judge Garza advised the Commission that the option of paddling is confined to those cases filed by the School District. He does not afford the option to parents of juveniles charged with traffic or other criminal offenses.

54.

55.

56.

57.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. 3. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall comply with the law . Canon 3B(3) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. Section 25.093 of the Texas Education Code provides that a parent may be charged with the offense of contributing to a students nonattendance, a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only. Section 25.094 of the Texas Education Code provides that a student may be charged with the offense of failure to attend school, a Class C misdemeanor. Article 45.054(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in cases involving the offense of failure to attend school (Sec. 25.094, Tx. Ed. Code), the court has jurisdiction to enter an order including one or more provisions listed therein requiring compliance by the student and, in some instances, by the student and the parent.

4. 5.

Section 9.62 of the Texas Penal Code provides a similar defense to School District employees, who are permitted to use reasonable force, including corporate punishment, as a form of discipline against a student under Section 22.0512 of the Texas Education Code. See Texas Attorney General Opinion No. GA-0374. However, according to Judge Garzas testimony, the School Districts current policy does not permit the use of corporal punishment against a child.

36

6.

Article 45.054(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure further provides that a disposition order under this article may not exceed beyond the 180th day after the date of the order or beyond the end of the school year in which the order was entered, whichever period is longer. Article 45.051(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by a defendant or on a finding of guilt in a misdemeanor case punishable by fine only and payment of all court costs, the judge may,, defer further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and place the defendant on probation for a period not to exceed 180 days. Article 45.050 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits a justice of the peace from ordering the confinement of a child for contempt of court. A child for purposes of this article is defined as a person who is at least 10 years of age and younger than 17 years of age and charged with or convicted of an offense over which the justice of the peace has jurisdiction.

7.

8.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented in this case that Judge Garza willfully and/or persistently failed to follow the law, in violation of Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by (a) proceeding against students and their parents under the same case number even when the parents were charged separately for a different offense; (b) requiring the parents to discharge the fine assessed against the students in the failure to attend cases; (c) failing to inquire into the students or their parents ability to pay a fine or to provide them with the options of a payment plan, performing community service in satisfaction of a fine or court costs, or waiving the fine or costs after a determination of indigency; (d) failing to properly document or issue a written judgment or order of probation or deferred disposition, including conditions for compliance, in the students cases; (e) failing to properly document or issue a written judgment or order assessing a fine, court costs, or special fee in the students cases; (f) failing to document or issue a written order of probation or deferred disposition, including conditions for compliance, in any case filed against the parents; (g) failing to properly document or issue a written judgment or order assessing a fine, court costs, or special fee in any case filed against the parents; (h) requiring the students and their parents to return to court after the parents had discharged the fine through paddling; (i) requiring the students and their parents to return to court more than 180 days beyond the date of their first appearance in court and/or beyond the end of the school year in which the court order was entered; (j) holding E.G. in contempt of court without providing evidence of the violation of a written order or judgment of the court; (k) holding E.G. in contempt of court without affording her adequate due process, including the right to be represented by counsel; and (l) ordering the confinement of E.G., who was sixteen (16) years old when charged with the offense of failure to attend school, for contempt of an unwritten court order. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission notes that Judge Garzas position that he never ordered the corporal punishment of students charged with failure to attend school could not be reconciled with his assertion that he had the legal authority to permit corporal punishment as a reasonable condition of probation under Article 45.051 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the Commission concludes that Judge Garza exceeded his authority by providing parents and the School District with a safe haven for the administration of corporal punishment. While acknowledging that the Legislature had not provided the courts with any legal authority to impose corporal punishment as a sanction under the Texas Education Code or

37

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Judge Garza routinely facilitated and permitted the paddling of juveniles in his courtroom thereby clothing the practice with an improper judicial blessing. This court-sanctioned paddling, which subjected the students and their parents to public embarrassment, humiliation, fear and pain, failed to maintain proper order and decorum in the courtroom as required by Canon 3B(3) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

***************************
In condemnation of the above-recited conduct that violated Canons 2A and 3B(3) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct recited above, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable Gustavo Garza, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 6, Place 1 in Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 9th day of March, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

38

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0458-JP

PUBLIC WARNING
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE MARY D. VALADEZ JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2 SAN DIEGO, DUVAL COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on April 14-16, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Mary D. Valadez, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. Judge Valadez was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Valadez appeared before the Commission on April 15, 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Mary D. Valadez was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. 2. On or about September 19, 2007, Maria Garcia (Garcia) went to Judge Valadez court seeking to evict an individual in possession of certain real property located in Precinct 2, which property Garcia and her father claimed to own. 3. Garcia was prepared to present and file a document entitled Plaintiffs Complaint for Forcible Detainer, along with a notice to vacate. 4. Judge Valadez was aware of the history of the dispute between the Garcia families over ownership and possession of the property in question. 5. According to Garcia, Judge Valadez refused to look at or accept the complaint for forcible detainer and told Garcia to hire an attorney and file her action in district court. 39

6. Thereafter, Garcia approached the Duval County Attorney and the Duval County Judge for assistance. 7. According to his sworn statement, the County Attorney contacted Judge Valadez and advised her that she was obligated to allow Garcias case to be filed. 8. According to his sworn statement, the County Judge also contacted Judge Valadez and advised her to allow Garcia to file the eviction case. 9. Judge Valadez indicated in her written response and testimony before the Commission that her memory of Garcias appearance in her court was vague. 10. Judge Valadez also stated that she did not recall speaking to the County Judge or County Attorney regarding Garcias case. 11. Judge Valadez recalled, however, that she informed Garcia that her case was never filed, after Garcia requested the judges recusal. 12. Judge Valadez did recall advising Garcia to seek the assistance of an attorney to file the case in district court because, according to the judge, the case involved a dispute over title to the property.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law . . . . 2. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law.] 3. Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding,, the right to be heard according to law. 4. Section 24.004 of the Texas Property Code provides that a justice court in the precinct in which the real property is located has jurisdiction in eviction suits as well as forcible detainer actions.

CONCLUSION
The Commission finds based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Valadez failed to comply with the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law, in violation of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by her refusal to accept Ms. Garcias forcible detainer action, over which Judge Valadez court did have jurisdiction. Judge Valadez was in error when she assumed, based on her knowledge of the history of the parties dispute over the property in question, that the action Garcia was intending to file involved a dispute over title to the property. By failing to review Garcias paperwork and refusing to accept the filing of a forcible detainer action, Judge Valadez effectively closed her court to an individual with a legal interest in the eviction action and denied that individual the right to be heard according to law, in violation of Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

********************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(2) and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC

40

WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Mary D. Valadez, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in San Diego, Duval County, Texas. Pursuant to the order, Judge Valadez must obtain four (4) hours of instruction with a mentor in addition to her required judicial education. In particular, the Commission directs that Judge Valadez receive instruction in the following areas: case filing and docketing, landlord/tenant law, including suits for forcible detainer and eviction, and the applicable provisions found in the Texas Property Code. Judge Valadez shall complete the additional four (4) hours of instruction recited above within ninety (90) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Valadez responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the four (4) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Valadez shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 27th day of April, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

41

UPDATED APRIL 12, 2010

PUBLIC SANCTIONS
FY 2010
The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2010 The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 07-0269-JP, 08-0901-JP, AND 09-0148-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE THOMAS G. JONES JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1, PLACE 1 DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on August 11-13, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Thomas G. Jones, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. Judge Jones was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. Judge Jones appeared with counsel before the Commission in April 2007, December 2007, and August 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Judge Thomas G. Jones began his service as Justice of the Peace in 1991. Since 2006, his court has become one of the busiest in the State, receiving well over 100,000 new cases annually. With a staff of between eighteen (18) and twenty-one (21) clerks employed during this period, Judge Jones typically disposed of approximately 48% of his caseload each year.

During this time, Dallas County created the J.P. Central Collection Center, which was set up to process citations generated by law enforcement officers carrying hand-held devices that would electronically file citations issued in the field with the Collection Center through a program known as Autocite. Six justice of the peace courts, including Judge Jones court, authorized the Collection Center to handle these Autocite citations by processing payments, sending correspondence, accepting pleas, and administering the Driving Safety Course. Citations that were not paid were eventually forwarded to the courts by the Collection Center. Problems soon arose as a result of the program. The large volume of citations issued through Autocite resulted in enormous backlogs. Warrants on outstanding citations in the Autocite program fell behind. In late 2007, the Collection Center was still in the process of issuing warrants on nearly 30,000 citations issued in 2006. By 2007, Judge Jones had received more than 8,000 old Autocite cases, and when the Collection Center was closed in 2008, his court received more than 150,000 cases just in one day. Starting in October 2005, the Commission began receiving and investigating numerous complaints alleging that cases filed in Judge Jones court were being mishandled and neglected by the judge and his staff. Over the next few years, the Commission would investigate more than twenty-six (26) cases filed against Judge Jones by litigants and judges, all of whom claimed that in their dealings with Judge Jones court, they encountered long delays, poor customer service, rude and discourteous demeanor, and a lack of professional competence, supervision, and training. After Judge Jones appeared before the Commission in April 2007 to discuss these concerns, the Commission offered to assist the judge in obtaining training for his staff and offered to provide a mentor judge to assist Judge Jones in identifying and addressing problem areas that needed immediate attention. In the Fall of 2007, a mentor judge (the Mentor) met with Judge Jones and his staff, observed the courts operations, and made numerous recommendations for improving Judge Jones court operations. Unfortunately, when Judge Jones appeared before the Commission a second time, in December 2007, he was unable to provide the Commission with any assurances that the areas of concern raised in the complaints, as well as in the Mentors report, would be appropriately addressed. As a result, the Commission voted to initiate formal proceedings against Judge Jones. In November 2008, the Commission filed its Notice of Formal Proceedings and charged Judge Jones with various violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct relating to the alleged mishandling of numerous cases in his court. Judge Jones filed a verified Answer to the Notice in February 2009. During the period following the December 2007 hearing before the Commission and the filing of the Notice of Formal Proceedings, the problems involving the judge and his court operations were the subject of several critical media stories. During this time, Judge Jones began to actively take steps to improve the courts processes and procedures. In addition, Dallas County stepped in to provide assistance, including budget and staffing increases. In the Summer of 2008, Dallas County closed the J.P. Central Collection Center. The Countys Human Resources Department performed an audit of the judges court staff training, supervision, and operations and identified numerous areas where changes were needed. According to the judge and others involved in the process, numerous improvements had already taken place during this time, and others were in the process of coming to fruition. As a result of representations regarding the work already completed and the efforts currently underway at the court, the Commission met a third time with Judge Jones in August 2009. During this hearing, Judge Jones acknowledged the problems in his court, including the fact that his staff needed more training and more supervision. Judge Jones also admitted that he was ultimately responsible for making sure his court staff was properly trained and supervised.

The judge assured the Commission that he would continue to take the appropriate steps necessary to ensure that litigants and others with whom he and his staff dealt with in an official capacity were treated with the proper courtesy, patience, respect and competency. As a result of the evidence introduced at the August hearing, most of the twenty-six (26) cases pending against the judge were dismissed. The remaining issues are addressed below.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Thomas G. Jones was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. CJC No. 07-0269-JP 2. 3. 4. 5. In August of 2003, Complainant was arrested in Parker County on warrants issued out of Dallas County for failure to appear to resolve two traffic citations. Complainant appeared before a Parker County Justice of the Peace and entered a plea of guilty to the charges. Complainants fine was satisfied by serving time in the Parker County jail. Although the Parker County Justice of the Peace timely forwarded the appropriate paperwork to Judge Jones court for processing, a data entry error made by a court clerk prevented Complainants warrants from being recalled and the cases were never properly disposed. In 2005, Complainant was unable to renew his drivers license because Judge Jones court had failed to properly enter the out-of-county plea information received from Parker County. Attempts by Parker County officials and by Complainant to resolve the problem with Judge Jones court staff proved to be unsuccessful. According to Complainant, he was treated rudely by court staff, who told him to stop calling, placed him on hold for long periods of time, or hung up on him. In a December 2007 report to the Commission, the Mentor wrote of his experience in attempting to contact Judge Jones court by telephone. According to the Mentor, who also heard reports from witnesses that calls would be answered and immediately hung up, or that callers were being placed on hold for inordinate amounts of time, or that it was impossible to speak to a live person after attempting to navigate through the endless loop of menu options prompted by the courts automated phone system, phone service to the court was virtually non-existent. The Mentor also observed that Judge Jones staff appeared to be willing and eager to learn, but was untrained, overworked, inadequately supervised, and forced to operate in a small, inefficient work space. The Mentor went on to describe instances where he observed judgments and other court papers that had been incorrectly prepared by court staff, who used the judges signature stamp without first verifying that the information contained in the documents accurately reflected the judges rulings. In his testimony before the Commission, Judge Jones acknowledged the serious problem of repeated instances of clerk errors and poor demeanor demonstrated by poorly trained and inadequately supervised court staff.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Judge Jones testified that he was taking a more active role in the training and supervision of his court staff, and had implemented several new procedures aimed at addressing the problems raised by these complaints and preventing similar instances from occurring again. Judge Jones also acknowledged that there could be serious consequences for a litigant as a result of clerk errors. For example, an individual could be arrested and jailed as a result of outstanding warrants still showing as active in the computer system. Additionally, the name of the litigant could be posted on the Dallas County Wanted website, which identifies individuals who owe fines and court costs to the County. CJC No. 08-0901-JP

13.

14. 15.

In 2008, Complainant was cited by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) officers for improperly obtaining a reduced student fare. At her June 23, 2008 appearance before Judge Jones, Complainant observed that the judge acted like a game show host, by making statements such as, Im cutting deals with you today! and if you have 2 or more traffic tickets I can dismiss one. During an earlier visit to Judge Jones court in 2007, the Mentor observed that Judge Jones improperly assumed the role of prosecutor by negotiating with defendants who had appeared before the court to resolve their cases. According to the Mentor, Judge Jones told defendants, Today is your lucky day, then proceeded to negotiate dismissals in some cases, deferred dispositions in other cases, and did so without the involvement of the prosecutor. Judge Jones denied that he acted like a game show host, or improperly dismissed cases without the consent of the prosecutor. CJC No. 09-0148-JP

16.

17.

18.

19.

According to the Rules of Judicial Education promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as a Justice of the Peace, Judge Jones is required to obtain at least twenty (20) hours of judicial education each year. In the 2008 academic year (September 1, 2007 through August 31, 2008), Judge Jones failed to obtain the required judicial education and was not granted a waiver of this requirement. Judge Jones does not dispute that he failed to obtain the required education in 2008. According to Judge Jones, he was unable to obtain the training due to the increased caseload being handled by his court and because of the time he needed to spend taking his wife to cancer treatments. Judge Jones testified that he attended two 20-hour programs the following year, one at his own expense, in order to make up for the failure to obtain the training in 2008.

20.

21. 22.

23.

RELEVANT STANDARD
Article V, sec. 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that any judge may be disciplined or removed from office for incompetence in performing the duties of the office or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes, based on the facts and evidence before it, that Judge Jones owes a duty to the public to ensure that his court staff is properly trained and adequately supervised; that cases filed in his court are handled competently and professionally; that paperwork prepared or handled by his court staff is accurate and reflects the correct disposition of the matters addressed therein; and that proper procedures are followed at all times so that the public maintains confidence in the judiciary and in the proper administration of justice. Judge Jones also owes a duty to the public to demonstrate professional competence in the law by obtaining the required number of hours of judicial education each year. The Commission concludes that Judge Jones conduct in the above-described matters constituted incompetence in performing the duties of his office, in violation of Article V, sec. 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The Commission further concludes that by failing to timely address the Commissions concerns until after the Commission and the media brought public attention to the problems of his court, Judge Jones demonstrated persistent conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties and cast public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice in violation of Article V, sec. 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Article V, sec. 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Thomas G. Jones, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 9th day of September, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Sid Harle, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 08-0908-JP, 09-0306-JP & 09-0731-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE CESAR PEREZ JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2 EAGLE PASS, MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 9-11, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Cesar Perez, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Judge Perez was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. Judge Perez appeared with counsel before the Commission on October 14, 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Cesar Perez was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas.

CJC No. 08-0908-JP

2. On March 18, 2008, Patricia Martinez (Martinez) filed a small claims suit in Judge Perezs court against Gloria Garcia (Garcia) for damages allegedly caused to her vehicle by Garcias son. On May 12, 2008, Judge Perez issued a citation commanding Garcia to appear and/or file a written answer in his court by May 21, 2008.

3.

4.

On May 19, 2008, a constable returned the citation to Judge Perezs court, noting that he had been unable to personally serve Garcia and had instead posted the citation on Garcias door that same day. On May 21, 2008, Garcia appeared in court, but Martinez did not. Judge Perezs clerk subsequently telephoned Martinez to find out why she had failed to appear for the hearing. Martinez advised the clerk that she had not received notice of the hearing and asked her to reschedule the trial for the following day. Judge Perezs clerk then advised both parties by telephone that they were to appear for a hearing two days later, on May 23, 2008. However, Garcia advised the clerk that she might not be able to attend the hearing because she had to work that day. The judge thereafter signed an undated trial setting notice, stating that he had set the case for hearing on May 23, 2008, and that he was sending a copy of the notice to both parties. On May 23, 2008, Martinez appeared for the hearing, but Garcia did not. On that date, Judge Perez signed a default judgment in Martinezs favor, awarding damages in the amount of $404.12. Judge Perezs clerk subsequently telephoned Garcia to find out why she had not appeared for the hearing, and Garcia told her that she had not been able to leave work that day. On June 4, 2008, Judge Perezs clerk called both parties and notified them of yet another hearing scheduled for June 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. According to Martinez, when she learned that Judge Perez had set a new trial date in her case, she believed that he had done so as the result of an improper ex parte communication with Garcia, and she further believed that Garcia must have been in a special position to influence Judge Perez. Judge Perez testified during his informal appearance that he did not recall vacating the initial default judgment in the case, and he further could not recall why a second hearing was held. He acknowledged, however, that court records revealed that a second trial was held on June 16, 2008, and that he thereafter entered a second judgment in favor of Martinez, again awarding her damages in the amount of $404.12.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

CJC No. 09-0306-JP

16. On December 5, 2007, Judge Perez met in his office with Martha Chacon, the former Maverick County Justice of the Peace for Precinct Two, and her adult son, Adrian Chacon (Adrian), to discuss a traffic ticket that Adrian had received, which was pending in the court of Kinney County Justice of the Peace Narce Villarreal. According to Judge Villarreal and her former court clerk, Patricia Hidalgo (Hidalgo), Judge Perez telephoned their office and advised Hidalgo that he wished to speak with Judge Villarreal about Adrians case. After Hidalgo informed Judge Perez that Judge Villarreal was unavailable, Judge Perez began discussing Adrians case with Hidalgo. According to Hidalgo, Judge Perez advised her that Adrian was trying to enlist with the Border Patrol and did not need this ticket on his record. Judge Perez then asked Hidalgo if Judge Villarreal would either grant deferred disposition or dismiss the ticket.

17.

18. 19.

20.

According to Judge Villarreal, this was not the first time that Judge Perez had contacted her office attempting to obtain favorable treatment on behalf of a friend or family member. Judge Perez acknowledged that he met with the Chacons in his court office on December 5, 2007 to discuss Adrians traffic ticket, explaining that the Chacons came to him seeking guidance on how to handle the matter. According to Judge Perez, however, the Chacons did not tell him what type of ticket Adrian had received and did not give him any information regarding the procedural posture of the case. According to Judge Perez, the Chacons informed him that they had been unsuccessfully trying to schedule a meeting with Judge Villarreal regarding Adrians ticket, but did not tell him what type of meeting they were attempting to schedule. Judge Perez acknowledged that he contacted Judge Villarreals office on the Chacons behalf from his court office, and spoke with a member of Judge Villarreals court staff in an attempt to schedule a meeting between the Chacons and Judge Villarreal. According to Judge Perez, he did not call Judge Villarreals office in [his] capacity as a justice of the peace, and was instead merely assisting a family that was having difficulty in scheduling a meeting with Judge Villarreal. Judge Perez acknowledged, however, that he did identify himself as a judge when he spoke with Judge Villarreals court staff.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

CJC No. 09-0731-JP

26. On or about November 12, 2008, John Bowles (Bowles) filed a small claims lawsuit against Hugo Buentello (Buentello), seeking $6,000 in damages in compensation for a trailer that Buentello had allegedly borrowed from him and failed to return. Judge Perez conducted a trial in the matter on February 24, 2009, after which he issued a judgment ordering Buentello to return the trailer to Bowles. The judgment did not provide for any monetary damages, and did not place a monetary value on the trailer. On April 2, 2009, Judge Perez issued a writ of execution, in which he authorized the constable or sheriff to seize the trailer on Bowles behalf, pursuant to his judgment. The writ of execution also stated that if the trailer could not be found, the constable or sheriff had the authority to seize other personal property equivalent to the value of the trailer from Buentello; the writ, however, failed to specify the value of said trailer. Bowles thereafter appeared on Buentellos property, along with a Maverick County Deputy Sheriff, attempting to execute on the judgment. Bowles attorney, believing that the judgment was void, contacted the Maverick County Attorneys office, who apparently advised the deputy to refrain from the execution. Although it is not entirely clear how this matter came to Judge Perezs attention, on April 16, 2009, Judge Perez issued an amended judgment, in which he again ordered the trailer returned to Bowles, but added an award of monetary damages to Bowles in the amount of $6,000, together with 10% interest. According to Judge Perez, he amended the judgment in an attempt to render it in compliance with Rule 560 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that: Where the judgment is for the recovery of specific articles, their value must be separately assessed, and the judgment shall be that the plaintiff recover

27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

32.

such specific articles, if they can be found, and if not, then their value as assessed with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent from the date of judgment. 33. 34. 35. Judge Perez stated that he consulted with the county attorney before doing so, and was advised to amend the judgment in this fashion. Judge Perez acknowledged that he did not notify either of the parties prior to amending the judgment. Judge Perez was unable to cite to any authority that would allow him to sua sponte amend his original judgment more than seven (7) weeks after its initial entry.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

3.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented in CJC No. 08-0908JP, that Judge Perez failed to follow the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law, in violation of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by: (a) issuing a citation affording the defendant less than ten (10) days to answer the suit and/or appear for trial; (b) failing to provide adequate notice of any trial settings to either party; and (c) holding a second trial after a default judgment had already been entered based solely on an oral request from the defendant. The Commission also concludes from the facts and evidence presented in CJC No. 090306-JP, that Judge Perez lent the prestige of his judicial office in an attempt to advance the private interests of Adrian Chacon, in violation of Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by contacting Judge Narce Villarreals office in an effort to persuade the judge, through her court staff, to provide a favorable resolution to Adrians pending traffic citation. The Commission further concludes from the facts and evidence presented in CJC No. 090731-JP, that Judge Perez failed to follow the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law, in violation of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, by: (a) issuing a final judgment and a writ of execution in a small claims proceeding for the return of property, in violation of Chapter 28 of the Texas Government Code; and (b) issuing an amended judgment on his own motion and without notice to the parties, well after his court had lost jurisdiction over the matter. ***************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B, and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Cesar Perez, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas.

Pursuant to this Order, Judge Perez must obtain five (5) hours of instruction with a mentor, in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission desires that Judge Perez receive this additional education in the area of procedures to be followed in civil cases and in small claims cases in particular. Judge Perez shall complete the additional five (5) hours of instruction recited above within sixty (60) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Perezs responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the five (5) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Perez shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this __17th__ day of December, 2009.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ____________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 08-0797-CC

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE MONICA GUERRERO COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 17-19, 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 7, in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Judge Guerrero was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Guerrero appeared with counsel before the Commission on August 13, 2009 and again on February 17, 2010, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2008, the Commission received and investigated a complaint from an anonymous source that alleged numerous incidents of misconduct against Judge Guerrero. Among the allegations were claims that Judge Guerrero (a) received stolen Southwest Airline travel vouchers from her bailiff, James Jackson; (b) accepted free tickets to San Antonio Spurs basketball games from lawyers and/or bail bondsmen; (c) accepted a patio built at her residence as a gift from two attorneys; and (d) made a false loan application to obtain a construction loan for $15,000, but used the proceeds for personal expenses and a vacation instead of paying for the patio construction. With regard to the allegations concerning the judges purchase or receipt of stolen Southwest Airline travel vouchers, the Commission found no credible evidence that Judge Guerrero knew at the time she received the vouchers that her bailiff, James Jackson, and his wife, had stolen them and were engaged in a scheme to sell large quantities of these travel vouchers. According to the judge, she trusted Jackson and assumed the vouchers had been acquired lawfully by Jacksons wife, who was employed by Southwest Airlines. The judge stated that she did not notice the Not For Resale statement on the face of the vouchers she received

from Jackson. Finally, there was no credible evidence that Jackson ever told the judge that the vouchers were stolen or instructed her not to tell anyone that she had purchased the vouchers. With regard to the allegations surrounding who did or did not pay for the construction of the patio and whether the judge procured a construction loan under false pretences, the Commission was unable to find sufficient credible evidence to support a violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commissions efforts to investigate this claim were compromised and undermined by several factors: (1) the incident in question occurred in 2003; (2) the memory of some witnesses was, at best, faulty due to the lapse of time; (3) receipts and other records could no longer be located or had been destroyed; (4) at least one key witness could not be found; (5) at least one witness was reluctant to cooperate with the investigation; (6) several witnesses provided conflicting accounts of what transpired and/or changed their testimony when questioned in detail; and (7) the judges own explanation for what transpired was not credible. These obstacles proved difficult to overcome and, as a result, caused considerable delays in resolving the matter against the judge. The remaining claim concerning the gift of Spurs tickets was found to have merit. In addition, in the course of its investigation the Commission received information concerning a letter of recommendation written by the judge on behalf of a close, personal friend. Both of these issues are addressed more fully below:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Monica Guerrero was Judge of the County Court at Law No. 7, in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.
The Spurs Tickets

2. On at least one occasion, Judge Guerrero accepted a free ticket to attend a San Antonio Spurs basketball game. 3. The ticket, valued at approximately $230, came from an attorney who wrote bail bonds and/or practiced in the judges court. The donor did not accompany the judge to the game. 4. On several occasions, the same attorney allowed Judge Guerrero to sit in his reserved seats when he was not attending the games. 5. According to Judge Guerrero, the reserved seats in question were premium seats, located very close to the floor and behind the visiting teams bench. 6. The judges attendance at the Spurs games as a guest of the attorney/bail bondsman was reported by a local television news station, where the propriety of this conduct was questioned. The Letter of Recommendation 7. On or about March 11, 2005, Judge Guerrero wrote a letter to the Board of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) on behalf of someone with whom she had a close, personal relationship. According to the judge, the purpose of the letter was to assist the applicant in her efforts to become board certified in this field. 8. In the letter, Judge Guerrero praised the applicants qualifications and attributes, and recommended her acceptance into that organization. The judges explanation that she had known [the applicant] for over five years was the sole basis for her having personal knowledge of this information.

9. After disclosing in the letter that the applicant had a [criminal] case pending in court, Judge Guerrero assured the ARRT that she was confident the applicant would be vindicated and that her reputation will be restored. Judge Guerrero provided no insight as to the basis for this optimistic forecast, nor did she clarify that the case was not pending in her court. 10. The letter was signed, Monica E. Guerrero, Judge, County Court at Law #7. 11. In her testimony before the Commission, Judge Guerrero claimed that although she did sign the March 11, 2005 letter, she did not write it. She further claimed that she only agreed to sign it under duress, a claim the Commission rejected. 12. The judge went on to suggest that because she merely edited the letter for grammar and punctuation, she was not responsible for its contents or the impression it may have given the ARRT. The Commission rejected this claim as well.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that a judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is inconsistent with the proper performance of a judges duties or casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 3. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. 4. Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. 5. Canon 4D(4)(c) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: Neither a judge nor a family member residing in the judge's household shall accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone exceptthe donor is not a party or person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes, based on the facts and evidence before it, that Judge Guerrero failed to comply with the law by accepting a valuable gift from a person whose interests did, and were likely to come before her court, when she attended San Antonio Spurs basketball games as the guest of an attorney/bail bondsman who practiced before her court. Because the propriety of her attendance at the basketball games as the guest of the attorney became a matter of public discussion, the public perception was that the judges impartiality could reasonably be questioned when/if that attorneys clients were to appear before her. With regard to the letter of recommendation, the Commission concludes that the judge went well beyond the scope of generally praising the qualifications of the applicant into an improper discussion of a criminal charge pending against the applicant. Clearly, the DWI charge was perceived as an obstacle to obtaining board certification. Judge Guerreros statements suggested that she had unique insight, or perhaps was privy to inside information, regarding the outcome of the case as a result of her position. It also suggested that the applicant was in a position to influence the judge in connection with the disposition of that case.

A judge must conduct all extra-judicial activities so that she not only is impartial, but appears to be impartial, while performing her judicial functions. Accepting valuable gifts from attorneys and/or persons with interests before the court, and writing letters of recommendation for a person against whom a criminal case is pending, are actions that severely compromise the publics confidence in a judges impartiality, independence and integrity, and cast discredit on the judiciary as a whole. The Commission concludes that Judge Guerreros conduct as described above constituted willful and/or persistent violations of Canons 2A, 2B, 4A and 4D(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

********************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B, 4A, and 4D(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 7, in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 26th day of March, 2010. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 09-0413-RT, 09-0488-RT, 09-0489-RT, 09-0637-RT

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER RETIRED DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 17-19, 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable W. Jeanne Meurer, formerly Judge of the 98th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.1 Judge Meurer was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Meurer appeared with counsel before the Commission on February 18, 2010, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable W. Jeanne Meurer, was Judge of the 98th Judicial District Court in Austin, Travis County, Texas. 2. On August 26, 2008, an initial detention hearing took place before Judge Meurer at the Gardner-Betts Juvenile Detention Center, in a case involving E.Y., a juvenile who had been arrested the night before for allegedly assaulting her mother. 3. Those present for the hearing included E.Y., her mother, her brother and sister-in-law, a CPS2 supervisor and caseworker, a CASA3 supervisor, a Casey Family Program CPS Reintegration Project Coordinator, a Texas Family Support Services parent coach and
Judge Meurer served as Judge of the 98th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, from 1989 through December 31, 2008, at which time she retired. Judge Meurer is currently eligible to sit by assignment pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 74.054. Child Protective Services (CPS) is a division of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. At the time of the hearing, E.Y. was a foster child in the temporary custody of TDFPS and had recently been returned to her mothers possession as part of the Casey Family Program CPS Reintegration Project. CASA is the acronym for the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, a non-profit organization whose voluntary participants advocate on behalf of children who are involved in legal proceedings.
3 2 1

mentor, the Assistant District Attorney, probation officers, E.Y.s public defender, and E.Y.s attorney in the CPS case. 4. Shortly after 1:20 p.m., the Assistant District Attorney announced the charge against E.Y. 5. After a brief discussion with E.Y., Judge Meurer sent the juvenile out of the courtroom and began questioning the remaining participants about their recommendations. 6. Initially, caseworkers discussed the pros and cons of a variety of options but appeared to believe detention was the more viable option until treatment services could be arranged and E.Y.s psychological and medical needs could be evaluated. The caseworkers also indicated that they needed additional time to formulate a family safety plan for E.Y.s eventual return home. 7. The initial recommendations were based in large part on the request of E.Y.s mother, who, fearing more violent outbursts, wanted her daughters medication reevaluated by a psychiatrist before E.Y. returned home. The caseworkers also attempted to explain the difficulties in finding a psychiatrist who could immediately assess E.Y., and their disagreement over whether E.Y.s medication needed to be addressed at all. 8. According to numerous witnesses, as the caseworkers attempted to explain their concerns and recommendations, Judge Meurer became visibly angry and motioned for the court reporter to start recording the proceedings. 9. On the record, Judge Meurer angrily stated her belief that the caseworkers were only recommending detention for the sake of expedience and their own convenience. 10. Judge Meurer further registered her disapproval of the recommendation to detain E.Y. by telling the caseworkers, Before I do that, each of you will spend three hours in this locked cell. You go in there and you be striped [sic] searched. And you spend three hours in this locked facility 11. The judge reiterated her intention to have the caseworkers appreciate the consequences of their recommendation shortly thereafter by stating, you go spend three hours down there and you be locked up. Each of you do it Judge Meurer went on to ask: Any of you been to jail? 12. The judge added, I want this transcribed. This may be one that I give to the Statesman. 13. Before taking a five minute recess, Judge Meurer told the parties to come back and tell me the honest truth and quit making up these stories and to stop us[ing] this Court. 14. After the recess, the caseworkers and E.Y.s mother communicated to the court that they recommended that E.Y. return home with a safety plan. 15. At approximately 2:15 p.m., Judge Meurer asked everyone who had originally recommended detention for E.Y. to raise their hands. After counting the raised hands, the judge directed her bailiff as follows:
This case will be recessed until 2:45, at which time I will reconvene with a decision. Each of you are to go back into detention. Detention, you are to have six different cells, and you are to put them in that cell and just let them sit there until 2:45. Tell me if this is where you want this child to beYoure to see what its like to be locked upI want the mother to experience what its like for the daughter to be locked up[P]lease follow Mr. Serna (bailiff) in.

16. The CPS caseworker and her supervisor, the CASA volunteer, the Casey Family Program CPS Reintegration Project Coordinator, the Texas Family Support Services parent coach and

mentor, and E.Y.s mother were then escorted down a hallway to a secured holding area, where they were placed in small, locked intake cells for approximately 20 minutes. 17. The parties returned to the courtroom at approximately 2:45 p.m., at which time Judge Meurer addressed their detention experience by saying: This is not punishment; this is helping people understand that jail is not a tool and that the deprivation of liberty is a frightening experience. And its a degrading experience. 18. The judge went on to explain that [y]ou would not have wanted me to leave you there for 24 hours as a way to appease my temper 19. After another recess, the District Attorneys Office announced that it was going forward with the assault charge against E.Y. Thereafter, the parties re-urged the recommendation they had made just prior to their detention that E.Y. be returned to her mother with a safety plan in place. 20. Judge Meurer accepted the recommendations, and concluded the hearing with the following commentary: For those of you who Ive worked with, I would ask to speak with you [in chambers]. If you care not to, thats your decision. Those of you who know me, know exactly what I did and why. For those of you who dont and are angry, Im sorry. 21. In her written and oral testimony before the Commission, Judge Meurer acknowledged that the initial recommendation for detention surprised, angered, frustrated, and disappointed her; however, she did not believe that her treatment of the participants was rude or discourteous. 22. The judge went on to explain that although she did let her anger affect her demeanor, since her intent was to achieve a settlement, her actions were within [her] authority. 23. The judge further described how, after the detention, she took on a more professional and supportive tone and invited the participants to meet with her in chambers for a more intimate heart-to-heart discussion of feelings. 24. Judge Meurer denied that she ordered the detention and stated that she did not believe that any of the participants had actually been detained. 25. Moreover, according to the judge, it had not been her intention to have the participants locked up; she did not order the cell doors to be locked; she did not believe that the cell doors had been locked; it was her belief that the detainees had always been free to refuse to follow the bailiff into the detention cells; it was her belief that, once placed in the cells, the detainees could have left at any time. 26. Despite Judge Meurers stated understanding of the incident, the detainees all believed that they had no choice in the matter of their detention as none had been offered the opportunity to refuse to be detained and all understood the judges instructions to the bailiff to be an order of the court. 27. Additionally, according to an officer who was present at the hearing, the cell doors had, in fact, been locked based on his understanding of the judges instructions and her use of the term locked up at various times in connection with the parties detention. 28. In her oral testimony before the Commission, Judge Meurer conceded that she had no legal authority to order any of these individuals held for any period of time in juvenile detention cells. 29. In her written and oral testimony before the Commission, Judge Meurer indicated her remorse for the actions she had taken on August 26th.

30. Further, the judge expressed regret that not all of the participants had accepted the apology she made at the conclusion of the detention hearing. 31. The incident involving the August 26th detention was the subject of an August 30, 2008 article in the Austin American Statesman.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for a willful violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, or for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of [her] duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law . . . . 3. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes, based on the facts and evidence before it, that Judge Meurer failed to comply with the law and failed to be patient, courteous and dignified in her dealings with the participants in the August 26, 2008 hearing. Specifically, Judge Meurer willfully violated Canons 2A and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by allowing her anger and frustration with the concerns and recommendations of the caseworkers and the juveniles mother to interfere with her judgment. As a result, seven adults were briefly, but unlawfully detained in locked cells at the Gardner-Betts Juvenile Detention Center. Each one of those detainees reasonably perceived that this extreme action was punishment for making a recommendation with which Judge Meurer disagreed. While the judges stated intention may have been commendable and her frustration understandable, her decision to execute that intent and appease her anger and frustration by having her bailiff lock these participants in juvenile detention cells was an abuse of Judge Meurers authority and cannot be condoned. The facts and circumstances surrounding this incident simply do not justify the rare circumstance in which such an extraordinary and extreme exercise of judicial power would ever be warranted. As further demonstrated by the change in her tone and demeanor immediately following the detention, Judge Meurer knew, or should have known, that her actions were excessive, did not comply with the law, did not show respect for the law, and did not promote public confidence in the judiciarys integrity and impartiality. As such, her actions constituted willful conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her judicial duties, and cast public discredit upon the judiciary and administration of justice in violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. In mitigation, the Commission notes that the judge (a) recognized that she had no authority to detain these individuals and (b) has been cooperative and contrite before the Commission.

********************************

In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, sec. 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable W. Jeanne Meurer, Former Judge of the 98th Judicial District Court, Austin, Travis County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 30th day of March, 2010. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 08-0085-MU, 08-0528-MU & 08-0274-MU

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE JOE HENRY GARZA LA JOYA MUNICIPAL COURT LA JOYA, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 9-11, 2009, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Joe Henry Garza, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, La Joya, Hidalgo County, Texas. Judge Garza was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. Judge Garza appeared with counsel before the Commission on December 10, 2009, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Joe Henry Garza was Judge of the Municipal Court in La Joya, Hidalgo County, Texas. At all times relevant hereto, Judge Garza was also employed as the court coordinator of the La Joya Municipal Court.

CJC Nos. 08-0085-MU & 08-0528-MU

Rolando Garcia 3. In July of 2007, Rolando Garcia (hereinafter Rolando) received two traffic citations for failure to maintain financial responsibility and for unauthorized equipment (hereinafter the original traffic citations), and was directed to appear in Judge Garzas court on or before July 26, 2007. When Rolando failed to appear in court on his appearance date, Judge Garza issued a warrant for Rolandos arrest, and opened a third case against Rolando for violate promise to appear that same day, but never filed a criminal complaint against Rolando for that offense and never notified Rolando of the charge.

4.

5.

On July 27, 2007, Rolando appeared in court, and at that time was told that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, and that he owed a total of $900.00 in fines for the three charges that were pending against him. Judge Garza dismissed the two original traffic citations on an oral motion of the prosecution, and allowed Rolando to enter a no contest plea to the violate promise to appear charge. Judge Garza orally advised Rolando that his fine in the violate promise to appear case was $300.00, and verbally ordered him to appear in court on August 9, 2007, to pay the fine. Judge Garza did not issue a written judgment of conviction on the violate promise to appear offense, and did not issue any written orders directing Rolando to appear in court on August 9, 2007. Rolando was unable to appear in court on August 9, 2007, and contacted the court by telephone in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain an extension of time to pay his fine. On the morning of August 10, 2007 at 11:08 a.m., the court opened an additional case against Rolando for the offense of failure to appear/bail jumping. Later that afternoon, Rolando arrived at the courthouse and attempted to pay the $300.00 fine in the violate promise to appear case, but was told that he now owed an additional $300.00 fine in the failure to appear/bail jumping case. Rolando requested an extension of time to pay the additional $300.00 fine, explaining that his financial situation did allow him to make the payment that day. Judge Garza denied his request and advised him that he would be incarcerated until he could pay the fine, and would be given a $50.00 credit for each day that he was incarcerated. Judge Garza then ordered an officer to come to the courthouse at 3:08 p.m., to arrest Rolando on the warrant for his failure to appear. Judge Garza, however, failed to issue a criminal complaint against Rolando charging him with this additional offense prior to his arrest and did not give Rolando the opportunity to enter a plea to this offense. In addition, Judge Garza did not conduct an indigency hearing and/or making any findings regarding Rolandos financial status before he incarcerated Rolando based on his inability to pay his fine.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15.

16.

Rolando was incarcerated in the city jail for four hours, and was released after signing a bond document indicating that he had been charged with the offense of warrants, and after posting a $603.00 cash bond. The bond document also included a plea form, which Judge Garza printed out shortly before Rolandos arrest, indicating that Rolando would forfeit his cash bond if he did not appear for a hearing set for August 16, 2007. Rolandos two cases were closed on August 16, 2007, when he did not appear on his scheduled court date. Judge Garza, however, did not issue a written judgment of conviction and/or any final orders in either matter. Salvador Garcia and Margarito Maldonado After learning that Rolando had been incarcerated on August 10, 2007, several of his family members arrived at the courthouse, including his father, Salvador Garcia (Salvador), and his sisters fianc, Margarito Maldonado (Maldonado). When Salvador entered the courthouse lobby, he spoke to court personnel located in an office area behind two glassed-in windows, and inquired about his sons incarceration. Judge Garza was in the office area, along with other court personnel, when Salvador began speaking to one of his clerks, using what Judge Garza described as vulgar language. Judge Garza identified himself to Salvador and tried to explain what had occurred in Rolandos case. According to Judge Garza, Salvador continued using vulgar language and would not respond to his warnings to be quiet. As a result, Judge Garza summoned a La Joya police officer to the courthouse. Judge Garza testified that the officer who arrived on the scene, Pft. Cosme A. Muniz III, made the decision to arrest Salvador, and was responsible for mistakenly filing a charge against Salvador for contempt of court, rather than for disorderly conduct. Judge Garza, however, was not able to provide a copy of a complaint or any other charging document filed by the police department against Salvador, and Officer Munizs arrest report indicates that Judge Garza ordered Salvador arrested for contempt of court. Judge Garza did not issue any written order or findings of contempt and/or any written commitment order either before or after Salvadors arrest. Salvador was incarcerated in the city jail for four hours, and was released upon signing a document entitled personal bond, indicating that he had been charged with the offense of contempt of court, and that he was being released on a personal recognizance (PR) bond, upon his promise to appear in court on August 17, 2007. Salvador thereafter appeared in court on August 17, 2007, at which time he pled nolo contendere to the contempt charge and paid a fine of $50.00. After Salvador was arrested, Rolandos other family members remaining in the court lobby, including Maldonado, questioned why Salvador had been arrested. According to statements provided by the four remaining family members, Judge Garza told all of them to either be quiet or to shut up, and threatened to order all four of them placed under arrest.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23.

24.

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

When Maldonado questioned Judge Garza about the propriety of his threat, Judge Garza warned him that if he did not remain quiet and/or leave the building, he would be arrested. As Maldonado was attempting to leave the building, he was arrested by La Joya police officer, Sgt. Carlos Zamarron. Judge Garza testified that Sgt. Carlos Zamarron made the decision to arrest Maldonado based on his personal observations of him, and was responsible for mistakenly filing a charge against Maldonado for contempt of court, rather than for disorderly conduct. Judge Garza, however, was not able to provide a copy of a complaint or any other charging document filed by the police department against Maldonado, and Officer Zamarrons arrest report indicates that Judge Garza ordered Maldonado placed under arrest for contempt of court. Judge Garza did not issue any written order or findings of contempt and/or any written commitment order either before or after Maldonados arrest. Maldonado was incarcerated in the city jail for four hours, and was released upon signing a document entitled personal bond, indicating that he had been charged with the offense of contempt of court, and that he was being released on a PR bond, upon his promise to appear in court for a hearing on August 16, 2007. Although Maldonado requested a trial in the matter, when he later appeared for his court hearing, Maldonado was required to pay a $100.00 fine at the hearing, and his case was then closed.

30. 31.

32.

33. 34.

35.

CJC No. 09-0274-MU

Contempt Cases 36. On various instances beginning in May of 2007, Judge Garza held at least eight individuals in contempt of court without legal authority for doing so. Further, in each instance, Judge Garza ordered the individuals arrested and placed in the city jail, where most remained for at least four hours before they were able to post cash-only bonds, as required by the judge. In most instances, Judge Garza failed to issue a written order or finding of contempt either before or after order the individual was incarcerated. In one instance, Judge Garza held 70-year old Lamar Castaneda in contempt of court for refusing to answer a question on an application for indigency status, and ordered him incarcerated for four hours until he posted a $488.00 cash bond. In two other instances, Judge Garza held two defendants, Hector Marez and Perla Garza, in contempt of court when they stated that they either might or would not return to court after he found that them in violation of the courts dress code, and ordered them to go home to change their clothes. One defendant was arrested and incarcerated for six hours until she posted a $100.00 cash bond. The other defendant was incarcerated for four hours until he was released on a PR bond. In another instance, Judge Garza, who was not present in the courthouse at the time, ordered the arrest of an Claudia Garza (Claudia) in the court lobby after his court staff telephoned him to report that Claudia was being rude to his court staff and using vulgar language, According to a police incident report, the officers who arrived on the scene spoke with Judge Garza by telephone after they arrived, and the judge ordered them to arrest Claudia for contempt of court.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Judge Garza, however, testified that he did not order the officers to arrest Claudia for contempt of court, as he was not present in the courthouse at the time, and instead directed them to charge her with disorderly conduct. Although the judge blamed the officers for mistakenly charging Claudia with this offense, he was not able to provide a copy of a complaint or other charging document filed by the police department charging Claudia with any criminal offense. After Claudia spent four hours in the city jail, she was released upon signing a bond document reflecting that she had been charged with contempt of court. In another instance, Francisco Eloy Salinas, a traffic defendant, approached Judge Garza and a group of police officers standing outside the municipal court building, which was closed due to a power outage, and stated that he wanted to pay his ticket that day despite the power outage. When Judge Garza advised him that the court was closed and that he could not pay his ticket that day, Salinas made a comment that offended Judge Garza, and he thereafter threatened to arrest Salinas if he said anything else of that nature. Judge Garza then asked Salinas if he understood what he had said, and Salinas failed to answer him, Judge Garza ordered him arrested for contempt of court by two nearby police officers, and Salinas was thereafter incarcerated for four hours until he was released upon posting a $100.00 cash bond. In another instance, Judge Garza ordered Yolanda Guajardo arrested for contempt of court, after she allegedly showed up late for her 17-year-old sons truancy hearing, which had been scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. that morning. Although Judge Garza testified that he found her in contempt of court for being disruptive, his testimony contradicted the police report and an affidavit that Guajardo made to the arresting officers. Further, Judge Garza failed to issue any findings to the effect that Guajardo was disruptive at the time of her arrest. Guajardo subsequently spoke about her arrest with a local television crew, complaining about Judge Garzas conduct, causing the incident to receive local media coverage. In another instance, Judge Garza had verbally ordered 17-year old Eva Comacho to attend school and thereafter allowed her mother to bring Comacho to court for a hearing, because she believed Comacho was not attending school and was causing disciplinary issues. Neither Judge Garza nor the school sent Comacho any prior notice to appear in court on this particular day, and the record reflects that Comacho was in court solely at her mothers request. Judge Garza testified that he routinely schedules hearings in truancy cases at the request of parents that believe their child is not attending school and/or is not otherwise obeying the courts prior orders. At the hearing, Comachos mother requested that Judge Garza either arrest Comacho or order her to boot camp. Because he had no authority to order Comacho to boot camp, he verbally ordered Comacho arrested for failing to obey his prior verbal orders. Although Judge Garza testified during his appearance that he ordered Comacho arrested because she was continuously interrupted him and used vulgar language, the police report contradicts Judge Garzas testimony, and the judge did not issue any written findings regarding Comachos allegedly inappropriate conduct.

41. 42.

43.

44.

45.

46. 47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

Pursuant to the judges verbal orders, as reflected in his docket sheet, Comacho was incarcerated in the city jail for three days and ordered to pay a $100.00 fine. In a similar instance, Judge Garza ordered the arrest and incarceration of another 17-year old student, Cecilia Zuniga (Cecilia) who he had previously verbally ordered to attend school when she was still sixteen years old Shortly after Cecilia turned seventeen, Cecilia was brought to court by her parents, and without any prior written notice to her and/or without issuing a notice to show cause, Judge Garza found Cecilia in contempt of court for failing to attend school, and ordered her incarcerated for three days in the city jail, and imposed a $100.00 fine on her. Finally, on this same day, Judge Garza also ordered the arrest of another seventeen year old, Ariana Plascencia (Ariana) who was brought to court by her father, who complained that she was not attending school in accordance with the judges prior verbal orders to attend school. Prior to the hearing, the judge did not issue a written notice of the hearing and/or an order to show cause warning her that she could be found in contempt at the hearing. Before her incarceration, the judge signed a commitment order indicating that she had been charged with the offense of contempt of court, and ordered Ariana, who was pregnant at the time, confined for three days in the city jail, in addition to imposing a $100.00 fine. Telephone Confiscations In several cases involving truancy defendants, including the case of Angela Pena (Pena), Judge Garza orally placed defendants on deferred disposition, and as a condition thereof, ordered them to relinquish their cell phones to the court, advising them that their phones would only be returned when they were able to prove to their court that their court attendance and their grades were in compliance with state requirements. Judge Garza acknowledged that when he took the cell phones from the truancy defendants, he did not issue written orders, and did not give the defendants written receipts and/or any other documentation indicating that the court had possession of their cell phones. Judge Garza testified that he directed his court staff keep track of the phones by placing sticky notes on them, containing the students names and school identification numbers, as well as the dates on which the phones were taken. All of the phones were stored in a desk drawer in his office, and Judge Garza acknowledged that at one point in time he had at least fifteen (15) other cell phones belonging to truancy defendants in his desk, some of which had been there for over two years. Judge Garza retained Angela Penas phone for over a year, despite repeated requests from her grandmother seeking the return of her phone, and despite the fact that she filed a police report regarding the incident. Judge Garza testified that his office had started the process of attempting to contact the various truancy defendants whose phones had been taken so that their personal property could be returned to them. The judge could not recall, however, whether Penas cell phone had been returned to her.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

Emergency Protective Orders 63. Judge Garza issued emergency protective orders against two defendants who were charged with offenses involving family violence. In both cases, the judge ordered the defendants to attend anger management classes at a particular counseling facility chosen by the judge. In addition, in one of the orders, Judge Garza ordered the defendant to register and attend drug rehabilitation counseling as well. Judge Garza also issued several other emergency protective orders in which he set a weekly visitation schedule for a defendant to see his children; directed at least two defendants to make temporary spousal and child support payments; and ordered a defendant to relinquish possession of a pickup truck to the defendants wife. Judge Garza could not cite to any specific provision in the law that would allow a municipal judge to issue such orders, but expressed his opinion that the Texas Family Code allowed him to make temporary support orders if they were in the best interest of a child. Cases Involving Family Members 66. 67. Beginning in September 2007, Judge Garza presided over at least two cases involving his relatives, Joshua and Michael Alaniz. Judge Garza was asked to describe what familial relationship, if any, he had with the Alaniz brothers, to which he replied: As a judge, I do not have a relationship with either Joshua or Michael Alaniz. During his informal appearance before the Commission, however, Judge Garza testified that Joshua and Michael Alaniz were the children of his first cousin, Michael Alaniz, who, as the La Joya City Manager, is also the immediate supervisor of Judge Garza when the judge serves in the capacity of court coordinator. In both instances, Judge Garza magistrated the defendants on charges of public intoxication, and released one defendant without setting a bond, and released the other defendant on a PR bond. Although both defendants failed to appear for their court hearings, Judge Garza did not file any additional charges against them, but did issue warrants for their arrest. When the defendants eventually appeared in court months later, Judge Garza cleared the warrants, and dismissed one of the defendants cases based on a verbal motion to dismiss made by the prosecutor, without issuing a written order of dismissal. Judge Garza orally placed the other defendant on deferred disposition, and although the record does not contain any documentation that the defendant completed the terms of his deferred disposition, Judge Garza subsequently dismissed his case, but failed to issue a written order to that effect.

64.

65.

68.

69.

70. 71.

72.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. . . Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

3.

Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in relevant part: A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states, in relevant part that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for incompetence in performing the duties of the office.

4. 5. 6.

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Garza failed to follow the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law, in violation of Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, in the following instances: (1) finding numerous individuals in contempt of court without any legal authority for doing so, and thereafter ordering them arrested and incarcerated without first issuing a written finding of contempt and/or a written commitment order; (2) requiring defendants to post cash only bonds, in violation of Article 17.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; (3) dismissing citations without a written motion from the prosecutor; (4) failing to reduce orders of deferred disposition and other orders and judgments to writing; (5) ordering the arrest of and incarceration of defendants for contempt of court orders that were issued when the defendants were sixteen years old, in violation of Article 45.050 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (6) ordering truancy defendants to relinquish their cell phones to the court as a condition of deferred disposition, without legal authority for doing so, and thereafter retaining them for a period in excess of 180 days; (7) holding contempt hearings in truancy cases at the request of parents, without prior notice to the truancy defendants and/or without any documentation of school attendance from the school district; (8) issuing emergency protective orders containing directives outside the scope of the judges legal authority; (9) directing defendants to attend anger management courses at an institute of the judges choosing; (10) presiding over two matters involving family members, who were the sons of his immediate supervisor, in which he gave them favorable treatment; and (11) engaging in sloppy and inadequate recordkeeping procedures. In addition, in Rolando Garcias case, Judge Garza acted improperly by: (1) charging Rolando with the offense of failure to appear/bail jumping after Rolando failed to pay a fine, rather than issuing a capias pro fine warrant for his arrest; (2) failing to issue a written complaint and/or other charging document against Rolando for the failure to appear/bail jumping offense; (3) failing to give Rolando the opportunity to enter a plea to that charge prior to his incarceration; and (4) ordering Rolando incarcerated until he could pay the fine without first holding an indigency hearing, as required by Article 45.046 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In mitigation, the Commission recognizes that Judge Garza has recently taken steps to correct some of these deficiencies, and in particular, has recently been more cautious in the use of his contempt powers during the past twelve months; now issues written orders in all cases in which he places defendants on deferred disposition, and is currently engaged in efforts to return the confiscated cell phones to their rightful owners. Judge Garza also testified that he now

reduces all of his orders and judgments to writing, and has attempted to document his actions in the courts files in more detail. In reaching its decision, the Commission also notes that Judge Garza initially provided misleading and incomplete information to the Commission in his sworn written responses, and provided oral testimony that contradicted court records supplied to the Commission. Judge Garzas lack of cooperation in this regard proved to be an aggravating factor in reaching a final decision in this case. ***************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2) and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Joe Henry Garza, Judge of the Municipal Court, La Joya, Hidalgo County, Texas. Pursuant to this Order, Judge Garza must obtain twenty (20) hours of instruction with a mentor, in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission desires that Judge Garza receive this additional education in the following areas: (a) the limits of a courts authority to find an individual in contempt of court and/or to order the arrest of individuals for disorderly conduct; (b) the proper procedures to be followed in both direct and indirect contempt cases; (c) the proper procedures to be followed in cases involving deferred disposition; (d) the proper procedures to be followed in scheduling hearings in truancy matters; (e) the proper procedures to be followed when a defendant violates a promise to appear and/or fails to timely comply with a previously imposed judgment; (f) the procedures to be followed when a defendant is unable to make a fine payment; (g) the proper procedures to be followed before dismissing a pending criminal case; (h) proper bond setting procedures; (i) the limits of a municipal courts jurisdiction when issuing emergency protective orders; and (j) proper record-keeping practices. Judge Garza shall complete the additional twenty (20) of instruction recited above within one-hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Garzas responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the twenty (20) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Garza shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order. Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 30th day of March, 2010. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ____________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated August 24, 2011

PUBLIC SANCTIONS
FY 2011
The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2011. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 09-0948-RT

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE WOODROW WOODY DENSEN SENIOR JUDGE HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on June 16-17. 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Woodrow Woody Densen of Houston, Harris County, Texas, a Senior Judge eligible to sit as a visiting judge by assignment. Judge Densen was advised of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Woodrow Woody Densen was a Senior Judge eligible to sit as a visiting judge by assignment. On or about June 18, 2009, Judge Densen was indicted by a Harris County Grand Jury for the felony offense of Criminal Mischief. The offense arose out of an incident allegedly occurring on or about May 23, 2009, in which the judge was accused of having keyed his neighbors car causing significant property damage to the vehicle.

Updated August 24, 2011

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The incident in question was allegedly captured on a surveillance tape, which was provided to the Grand Jury as evidence. The tape, along with the judges indictment, received widespread media attention. On June 23, 2009, the Commission issued an Order of Suspension, suspending the judge from judicial service until the underlying criminal case was resolved. On or about April 8, 2010, Judge Densen entered a guilty plea in the case after the charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor. In connection with the plea agreement, Judge Densen will also pay a $1,500.00 fine and more than $6,000.00 in restitution. In his written responses to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Densen denied that he committed the offense for which he was convicted and did not accept responsibility for any conduct that resulted in his conviction. The judges plea agreement also received local media attention.

10.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1.

Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.
Section 33.001(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code states that for purposes of Article V, 1a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge's duties includes: willful violation of a provision of the Texas penal statutes or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

2.

3.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that while serving as a Senior Judge eligible to sit as a visiting judge by assignment in the State of Texas, Judge Densen failed to comply with the law and failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by engaging in conduct that constituted a violation of the Section 12.44(b) of the Texas Penal Code. As a public official charged with upholding the honor and decorum of the judiciary, Judge Densen knew or should have known that his actions would cast public discredit upon the integrity of the judiciary. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the judges actions constituted a willful violation of Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. **************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable Woodrow Woody Densen, Senior Judge, Houston, Harris County, Texas.

Updated August 24, 2011

Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, Section 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above is made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 14th day of October, 2010. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ____________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 09-0806-CO & 09-0849-CO

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE JOHN PHILLIP FITZGERALD COUNTY JUDGE LIBERTY, LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 8-10 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable John Phillip Fitzgerald, County Judge in Liberty, Liberty County, Texas. Judge Fitzgerald was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Fitzgerald appeared with counsel before the Commission on June 16, 2010, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

Updated August 24, 2011

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2008, the Commission received and investigated several complaints filed by confidential sources that alleged numerous incidents of misconduct against Judge Fitzgerald. Many of the matters alleged in the complaints had received extensive local media attention. After a full and thorough investigation, the Commission was unable to substantiate certain claims and, therefore, voted to dismiss those complaints. However, included in the above-referenced complaints were allegations that Judge Fitzgerald had (a) improperly dismissed criminal cases pending in the County Court-at-Law court, including a DWI charge against the judges close personal friend; and (b) improperly acted as a Trustee of a Trust and as the fiduciary/personal representative of that same close personal friend after becoming the Liberty County Judge. Both of these issues are addressed more fully below:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable John Phillip Fitzgerald was County Judge in Liberty, Liberty County, Texas.1 The Vickery Trust 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Judge Fitzgerald and Glenn W. Vickery (Vickery) have been close friends for many years. Vickery has a daughter, Jessica, for whose benefit he created a trust in 1987. On or about August 28, 2001, while a Justice of the Peace, Judge Fitzgerald was appointed Trustee of the Jessica Vickery Irrevocable Trust (the Vickery Trust). Under an exception to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct2, a justice of the peace may ethically serve in the capacity of a trustee. Although prohibited by Canon 4E(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Fitzgerald continued serving as Trustee after being elected Liberty County Judge. On or about April 28, 2009, Jessica and her mother, Helen Green, filed a lawsuit in the 75th District Court seeking to remove Judge Fitzgerald as Trustee of the Vickery Trust, claiming that his service violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and that he had materially violat[ed] and attempt[ed] to violate the terms of the Trust. On or about November 24, 2009, after a non-jury trial, Judge Rusty Hight of the 75th District Court signed a final judgment removing Judge Fitzgerald as Trustee of the Vickery Trust.3 In addition to serving as Trustee of the Vickery Trust, Judge Fitzgerald was also appointed to act as a fiduciary under a Medical Power of Attorney executed by, and on behalf of, Vickery, in 2005. Judge Fitzgerald justified his continued service as a fiduciary on behalf of Glenn Vickery and Jessica Vickery by claiming he enjoyed a close familial relationship with members of the Vickery Family.

7.

8.

9.

Judge Fitzgerald served as a Justice of the Peace in Hardin, Liberty County, Texas, for twenty years prior to becoming the Liberty County Judge in 2007. 2 Canon 6C(1)(b) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct expressly exempts Justices of the Peace from compliance with Canon 4E of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
3

The judgment was subsequently set aside as a result of a settlement agreement between the parties.

Updated August 24, 2011

10.

In support of this claim, Judge Fitzgerald testified that he and Glenn Vickery became friends in the mid 70s, and that the two have lived in the same small community for more than 30 years. Judge Fitzgerald went on to describe how they both supported their community, served together on the local school board, and that their children at one time attended school together. Judge Fitzgerald stated that he thought of Jessica Vickery as a daughter. Judge Fitzgeralds construction company was also hired to perform remediation work on Vickerys ranch following Hurricane Rita. The DWI Dismissal

11.

12.

13. 14.

On or about December 31, 2008, Judge Fitzgerald signed an order dismissing a charge of Driving While Intoxicated against his close personal friend, Vickery. At the time of the dismissal, Vickerys case had been pending before the County Court at Law. The judge of that court had not been advised of the dismissal, nor had he given permission for Judge Fitzgerald to handle any cases pending in the County Court at Law. Judge Fitzgerald testified that on the morning of December 31, 2008, he was approached by the County Attorneys Office with a request by Jack Hartel (Hartel), the outgoing County Attorney, to dismiss five (5) cases that were pending in the County Court at Law. Having determined that there was some basis for dismissal, a prosecutor prepared the dismissal paperwork for the five (5) cases and presented dismissal orders to Judge Fitzgerald for his signature. Among the five (5) cases presented was the DWI case involving Judge Fitzgeralds close personal friend, Vickery. Judge Fitzgerald signed the orders. Upon learning of the dismissed cases, the County Court at Law judge rescinded Judge Fitzgeralds orders, reinstated the cases, and asked the presiding administrative judge to appoint a visiting judge to hear those cases. According to one witness, Judge Fitzgerald never obtained the consent of the County Court at Law judge to handle, or sign any orders relating to, these cases. The December 31, 2008 dismissal of Vickerys DWI case received local media attention.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
4. Canon 4E(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not serve as executor, administrator, or other personal representative, trustee guardian, attorney in fact or other fiduciary, expect for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judges family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined or removed from office for willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.

5.

Updated August 24, 2011

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence before it that Judge Fitzgerald acted in violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct when he continued to serve as Trustee of the Vickery Trust, and as a fiduciary or personal representative of Glenn Vickery, after becoming the Liberty County Judge. Judge Fitzgerald testified that he and members of the Vickery Family had a close familial relationship. Specifically, the judge described how he and Glenn Vickery had been long-time, close friends, and that the judge thought of Jessica Vickery as a daughter. However, the Commission finds that maintaining a close friendship and having paternal feelings toward someone elses child, standing alone, do not satisfy the close familial relationship standard articulated by the Canons. The Commission concludes that Judge Fitzgeralds failure to voluntarily remove himself as Trustee, even after legal action was taken against him, constituted a willful and/or persistent violation of Canon 4E(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission also concludes that Judge Fitzgerald cast public discredit upon the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice when he dismissed the DWI case pending against Vickery, his close personal friend. Judge Fitzgeralds actions in this regard constituted a willful violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

********************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canon 4E(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable John Phillip Fitzgerald, County Judge in Liberty, Liberty County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 16th day of December, 2010. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated August 24, 2011

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 11-0105-JP

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
HONORABLE BENNIE OCHOA JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1, PLACE 1 PORT ISABEL, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 16-17, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Bennie Ochoa, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, Port Isabel, Cameron County, Texas. Judge Ochoa was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Bennie Ochoa was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, in Port Isabel, Cameron County, Texas. On or about September 3, 2010, Judge Ochoa wrote a letter of support on behalf of Adrian Zuniga-Hernandez (Zuniga), a defendant in a criminal case pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The letter in question was written on official court letterhead, addressed to To Whom it May Concern, and signed by the judge in his official capacity as Justice of the Peace. In his sworn written response to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Ochoa stated that he has known Zuniga for some years, as Zuniga has been a member of the Laguna Madre community where the judge has lived for the past 14 years. The judge further explained that the intent of the letter was to assist Zuniga, who was facing immigration deportation proceedings. Judge Ochoa testified that he assumed the letter, which had been requested by Zunigas spouse, was being submitted to United States Immigration authorities. He claimed that he was unaware that the letter would be submitted to the United States District Court.

3. 4.

5. 6.

Updated August 24, 2011

RELEVANT STANDARD
Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that by writing a letter of support on behalf of Zuniga, Judge Ochoa was improperly lending the prestige of his judicial office to advance the private interests of Zuniga and his family. The Commission concludes that Judge Ochoas conduct constituted willful violation of Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. In reaching this decision, the Commission took into account Judge Ochoas prior public disciplinary history as an aggravating factor.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC REPRIMAND to the Honorable Bennie Ochoa, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 1, Port Isabel, Cameron County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC REPRIMAND by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Issued this the 31st day of March, 2011.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated August 24, 2011

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 10-0516-JP

PUBLIC WARNING
HONORABLE CESAR PEREZ JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2 EAGLE PASS, MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on February 16-17, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Cesar Perez, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Judge Perez was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Cesar Perez was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2 in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. On or before January 25, 2010, a local citizen (hereinafter I.H.) came to Judge Perezs courthouse and spoke with his court staff, requesting that Judge Perez issue a protective order against her ex-husband (hereinafter R.H.). I.H. provided Judge Perezs court staff with copies of several incident and offense reports involving situations in which I.H. had contacted the local sheriffs office reporting that R.H. had been verbally harassing her and her current boyfriend. The incident and offense reports were dated from March 16, 2007 to November 2, 2009. On January 25, 2010, Judge Perezs court staff, acting at Judge Perezs direction, prepared a summons directing R.H. to appear in court to answer THE STATE OF TEXAS for an offense against the laws of said state, to-wit: Civil Matter of which offense [R.H.] is accused by the written complaint, under oath of [I.H.] filed before me. The summons warned that R.H.s failure to appear in court will cause the court to immediately issue a WARRANT for the ARREST of the said accused.

3.

4. 5.

6.

Updated August 24, 2011

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

The summons did not contain a cause number, and did not reference any pending case in which R.H. had been charged with a criminal offense. The courts file, as supplied by Judge Perez, did not contain any written complaint filed by I.H. Judge Perez did not review the summons before it was issued, and instead allowed his court staff to use his signature stamp on the document in his absence. After R.H. was served with the summons on January 29, 2010, he retained the services of an attorney, who contacted Judge Perez on his behalf. According to R.H.s attorney, Judge Perez informed him that he had issued the summons because he just wanted to speak to [R.H.]. After R.H.s attorney challenged his authority to issue the summons, Judge Perez acknowledged his mistake and did not require R.H. to appear in court. In his written responses to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Perez stated that he directed his staff to issue the summons in order to determine if a protective order was appropriate. Judge Perez, however, did not cite to any authority that would allow him to issue a summons and/or a protective order under these circumstances.

14.

RELEVANT STANDARD
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Perez failed to follow the law and demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law when he issued a summons for a citizen to appear in his court when no case was pending against the citizen and no criminal charges had been filed against him. The citizen was threatened with arrest if he did not appear in court, and was forced to retain the services of an attorney in order to resolve the matter. The Commission concludes that Judge Perezs conduct as described herein constituted willful violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. In reaching its decision, the Commission also took into account Judge Perezs prior public disciplinary history as an aggravating factor.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable Cesar Perez, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 2, in Eagle Pass, County, Texas.

Updated August 24, 2011

Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC WARNING by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Issued this the 6th day of April, 2011.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 10-0292-JP

PUBLIC ADMONITION
HONORABLE CHARLES THOMAS CORBIN FORMER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 7 MANSFIELD, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on April 13, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded its review of the allegations against the Honorable Charles Thomas Corbin, former Justice of the Peace for Precinct 7, in Mansfield, Tarrant County, Texas. Judge Corbin was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. Judge Corbin appeared with counsel before the Commission on February 17, 2011, and gave testimony. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions:

Updated August 24, 2011

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Charles Thomas Corbin was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 7, Mansfield, Tarrant County, Texas.4 The Citizens Arrest 2. In May of 2008, while driving to the courthouse, Judge Corbin observed a female driver (hereinafter D.C.) drive past him at what he believed was an accelerated rate of speed. By coincidence, D.C. pulled into the courthouse parking lot at the same approximate time as Judge Corbin. When Judge Corbin entered the building, he observed D.C. standing in line at the counter of the county clerks office located on the first floor of the courthouse. Judge Corbin approached D.C. and verified that she had been driving the vehicle that he had observed passing him en route to the courthouse. Judge Corbin informed D.C. that he was a justice of the peace and that he believed she had been driving in excess of the speed limit. Judge Corbin asked D.C. for her drivers license and directed her to come upstairs to the Justice of the Peace office when she had completed her business at the County Clerks office, advising her that he would return her license when she did so. Judge Corbin acknowledged that D.C. had no choice but to come to his office to recover her license. Judge Corbin thereafter made a copy of D.C.s drivers license but did not open a case file in the matter. Judge Corbin subsequently met with D.C. in his office in the presence of one of his court staff. Judge Corbin recalled that D.C. was tearing up when she first entered his office and that she appeared to be scared and confused. Judge Corbin therefore attempted to put D.C. at ease by initially engaging in small talk with her. During their meeting, Judge Corbin lectured D.C. about speeding and the dangers that it presented, cautioned her about her driving conduct, and asked her to reduce her speed in town. Judge Corbin explained that his intent in meeting with her was to preserve peace in the community. Judge Corbin did not issue any written orders to D.C. and did not order his bailiffs or any other law enforcement officials to issue a citation to her.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

Judge Corbin lost his bid for re-election during a primary runoff election in April of 2010, and as of January 1, 2011, was no longer a sitting judge.

Updated August 24, 2011

16.

Judge Corbin testified during his appearance before the Commission that in retrospect, he should have turned the matter over to law enforcement officials to handle. Accepting Payments in Satisfaction of Judgments and/or Settlement Agreements

17.

On or about December 11, 2007, Judge Corbin held a trial in a small claims case, and thereafter orally announced that he was rendering a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (hereinafter H.M.) and against the defendant (hereinafter K.L.). Judge Corbin, however, did not issue a final written judgment in the case because the parties advised him that they had reached a settlement agreement, so that K.L. could avoid having a judgment on her record. The settlement agreement required K.L. to make periodic payments or installments to H.M., and further specified that K.L. was to drop off her payments at the courthouse on specified dates until such time as the amount of the judgment was discharged. The payments were to be in the form of a check from K.L. made out to H.M. According to the agreement, if K.L. defaulted on her obligations under the terms of the payment plan, the parties agreed that Judge Corbin would be authorized to enter the judgment against her. Judge Corbin acknowledged that he agreed to this arrangement, and that his court clerks, acting at his direction, thereafter accepted over twenty payments from K.L. between December of 2007 and November of 2008. Initially, K.L. dropped the checks off at the courthouse for H.M. to pick up. However, H.M. subsequently provided the court staff with self-addressed stamped envelopes for the staff to mail the checks to her. In each instance when his court clerks accepted payments from K.L., they furnished her with a receipt before mailing the payments to H.M. Judge Corbins court staff, acting at his direction, made several phone calls to K.L. when she was late in dropping off her payments at the courthouse in order to remind her of her obligations under the settlement agreement. After concluding that this procedure was too burdensome on his court staff, Judge Corbin stopped allowing parties to use his court as a drop-off point for making installment payments to another party. However, Judge Corbin continued to allow defendants in civil cases to drop off onetime payments at his court to satisfy judgments or pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. The payments were required to be in the form of a check issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. When plaintiffs arrived at the courthouse to pick up their payments, they were given the opportunity by Judge Corbins clerks to execute a release of judgment. If a plaintiff did not immediately pick up a payment after it was dropped off, the check was placed in the clerks lock-drawer for safe-keeping or stored in a safe in Judge Corbins office.

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29. 30. 31.

Updated August 24, 2011

Accepting Rental Payments at the Courthouse from Tenants in Eviction Cases 32. 33. Judge Corbin also allowed tenants to use the court as a neutral drop-off point for making rental payments to landlords. Judge Corbin explained that he did so primarily in cases in which the parties to an eviction case had reached a Rule 11 agreement5, or some other settlement, allowing a tenant to make a rental payment and/or a series of payments to a landlord in order to resolve their dispute. In addition, Judge Corbin also allowed tenants in eviction cases to drop off rental payments at the courthouse in cases in which he concluded that the tenants had a right to make a rental payment and/or a series of rental payments in order to bring their rental obligations current. Judge Corbin explained that his two primary goals in allowing his court to be used as a drop-off point were to: (1) provide a record of payment; and (2) avoid confrontation between the parties, in cases in which he had concerns about the parties safety. In several cases in which tenants were late in dropping off their rental payments, Judge Corbin directed his court staff to telephone the tenants to remind them to make their scheduled payments. Judge Corbins staff also contacted the parties in such cases to ascertain whether the parties had fulfilled their obligations in order to determine whether a pending eviction case could be finalized and/or closed. Judge Corbins staff maintained a record in the courts file documenting when the tenant dropped off the rental payment and/or when the landlord picked up the payment. In most instances, tenants would bring rental payments to the courthouse in the form of a check; however, on one occasion, Judge Corbin accepted a cash payment of $540.00 from a tenant and placed the money in the courts safe until the landlord arrived at the courthouse to pick up the payment.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38. 39.

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. 2. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law. Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge . . . shall maintain professional competence in [the law].

3.

Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record.

Updated August 24, 2011

CONCLUSIONS
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Corbin exceeded the scope of his judicial authority and misused his position as judge when he approached a driver who he believed had been speeding, identified himself as a judge, ordered her to produce her drivers license to him, and directed her to appear in his chambers in order to obtain the return of her license. With no case pending in his court, Judge Corbin used his judicial authority to force the driver to appear before him in order to lecture her about his own personal feelings about her driving. In this instance, Judge Corbin failed to comply with the law, failed to maintain professional competence in the law, and lent the prestige of judicial office to advance his own personal interest, in willful or persistent violation of Canons 2A, 2B, and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission also concludes that Judge Corbin exceeded the scope of his judicial authority when he (1) directed his court staff to accept payments from defendants on behalf of plaintiffs to discharge judgments and/or to comply with the terms of settlement agreements in cases that either were, or had been, pending in his court, and (2) directed his court staff to accept rental payments from tenants on behalf of landlords in eviction cases that either were, or had been, pending in his court. In these instances, Judge Corbin failed to comply with the law and failed to maintain professional competence in the law in willful or persistent violation of Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

*******************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 2B and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Charles Thomas Corbin, former Justice of the Peace for Precinct 7, in Mansfield, Tarrant County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the conduct described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission takes this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system, and to assist the state judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 9th day of May, 2011.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

_________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated August 24, 2011

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NO. 11-0047-JP

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION
HONORABLE GEORGE HENRY BOYETT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 3 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on June 15-17, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable George Henry Boyett, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Judge Boyett was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

FINDINGS OF FACT
7. 8. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable George Henry Boyett was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. On or about September 11, 2010, several fraternities gathered on the Texas A&M University campus, located in College Station, Texas, to participate in a recruitment event known as Bid Day or Bid House. At some point, individuals from two fraternities became involved in a minor altercation. During the altercation, someone took a class ring belonging to Brian Pownall, a student at Texas A&M University, and threw it into the grass. Shortly thereafter, an officer with the Texas A&M University Police Department detained Thomas Andrew Slauter (hereinafter Slauter) while the incident was being investigated by other officers.

9.

10.

Updated August 24, 2011

11.

Despite repeated denials of any involvement in the incident, Slauter was arrested for Theft from a Person, a State Jail Felony offense, and transported to the Brazos County jail. On or about September 12, 2010, Slauter was magistrated via teleconference by Judge Boyett. After advising all of the defendants present for magistration of their constitutional rights, Judge Boyett called Slauters name indicating that it was his turn to be magistrated. Judge Boyett first asked Slauter where he was from, to which Slauter responded, Sugarland, Texas. Judge Boyett then asked Slauter if he was a student at Texas A&M University. When Slauter responded that he was a student at nearby Blinn College, Judge Boyett made the following observation: You might want to think about going somewhere else considering the nature of your criminal activity. Judge Boyett then asked Slauter if he knew what an Aggie ring was, to which Slaughter responded that he did not. At this point in the proceedings, Judge Boyett held up his right hand and said, See this on my hand? indicating to Slauter that the judge was wearing an Aggie ring. Judge Boyett made no other statements to Slauter about the case, other than to advise Slauter of the charge filed against him and set his bond at $50,000. According to the Brazos County bond schedule in effect at the time of Slauters arrest, the threshold bond amount for a state jail felony is $5,000. In his written response to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Boyett explained that he advised Slauter that he might want to consider attending another school out of concern that Slauter would be a target remaining in this area. Judge Boyett further explained that he displayed his own Aggie ring because he felt that Slauter was entitled to know that he wore one. Judge Boyett stated that he had considered recusing himself from the matter, but then concluded that he could go forward if he disclosed that he wore an Aggie ring. Judge Boyett went on to explain that the Aggie ring is a manifestation of one of the highest traditions in the community[i]t is an outward, visible symbol of the wearers commitment to the school. Judge Boyett also stated that he was able to conclude a statement in the probable cause affidavit that some sort of assault had occurred although not charged, which warranted enhancing the bond to $50,000. A copy of the audio/video recording of Judge Boyetts September 12, 2010 magistration of Slauter was provided to the Commission. On or about September 15, 2010, the theft charge against Slauter was dropped after another individual confessed to throwing the ring into the field. The incident became the subject of local media attention critical of the judges actions in the case.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

26. 27. 28.

Updated August 24, 2011

RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in relevant part: A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. . . Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.

2. 3.

CONCLUSION
1. The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Boyett willfully violated Canons 3B(4) and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, when, during the magistration of Slauter for the alleged theft of Pownells Aggie ring, the judge (a) displayed his own Aggie ring, (b) advised Slauter that he should consider attending another school outside of College Station, and then (c) relied on information not contained or charged in the probable cause affidavit to enhance the standard bond for a state jail felony to $50,000. By these actions and statements, Judge Boyett acted in an impatient, undignified, and discourteous manner toward a defendant and abandoned his role as a neutral, detached and impartial magistrate. Instead, the judge indicated a strong bias in favor of the victim while also suggesting that he believed the defendant had in fact engaged in criminal activity. In reaching this decision, the Commission took into account Judge Boyetts prior public disciplinary history as an aggravating factor.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 3B(4) and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable George Henry Boyett, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 3, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Pursuant to this Order, Judge Boyett must obtain ten (10) hours of instruction with a mentor, in addition to his required judicial education. In particular, the Commission desires that Judge Boyett receive this additional education in the area of proper judicial demeanor. Judge Boyett shall complete the additional ten (10) hours of instruction recited above within sixty (60) days from the date of written notification of the assignment of a mentor. It is Judge Boyetts responsibility to contact the assigned mentor and schedule the additional education. Upon the completion of the ten (10) hours of instruction described herein, Judge Boyett shall sign and return the Respondent Judge Survey indicating compliance with this Order.

Updated August 24, 2011

Failure to complete, or report the completion of, the required additional education in a timely manner may result in further Commission action. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Issued this the 11th day of July, 2011.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY __________________________________________ State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated February 8, 2012

PUBLIC SANCTIONS FY 2012

The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2012. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commissions offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 415, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC No. 10-1018-JP

Public Admonition
Honorable Jeff Cox Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1 Hemphill, Sabine County, Texas
During its meeting on August 18, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Jeff Cox, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Hemphill, Sabine County, Texas. Judge Cox was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided a written response. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions.

Updated February 8, 2012

Findings of Fact
1. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Jeff Cox was Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1 in Hemphill, Sabine County, Texas. On November 24, 2009, Texas Park and Wildlife Game Warden Randy Button (Button) cited Nathan Ener (Ener) for failing to complete the harvest log on the back of his hunting license after killing a buck white-tail deer. On November 25, 2009, Judge Cox and Button met outside the judges house to discuss the Ener citation. Without the judges knowledge, Button recorded their conversation using his trucks dash cam and a lapel microphone. Based on the recording provided to the Commission, the following discussion occurred outside the judges home: a b c Judge Cox and Button exchanged pleasantries and discussed Buttons struggles with a local automobile dealer; Judge Cox then initiated a conversation about the citation by asking Button to tell me about your deal with Ener; After Button discussed the circumstances leading to the issuance of the citation, Judge Cox informed Button that he was going to dismiss the citation to avoid a potential official oppression lawsuit from being filed against Button and other county officials by Ener; Judge Cox went on to explain that Ener and others wanted to stir up stuff about the Sheriff, and that the citation issued by Button will open up a shit storm. Judge Cox informed Button that he had learned of Eners plans through private conversations with Ener; Judge Cox advised Button that the dismissal would prevent Ener from muddy[ing] your [Buttons] name for bullshit; and Judge Cox told Button, a $160 ticket aint worth that.

3. 4. 5.

e f g 6.

On or about December 8, 2009, Ener appeared in Judge Coxs court, entered a plea of not guilty, and requested a bench trial. Thereafter, Ener filed motions to obtain discovery from the State, as well as a motion to dismiss. On March 4, 2010, Judge Cox granted Eners motion and dismissed the case against Ener with prejudice. There is no evidence that the prosecutor was involved in this process. In his written responses to the Commissions inquiry, Judge Cox acknowledged having the conversation with Button about the Ener citation, stating that, I was off work and thought I was visiting with a friend. Judge Cox added that he did not know he was being recorded by Button and did not believe he was performing any official duties at the time.

7.

8.

Updated February 8, 2012 9. 10. 11. 12. Judge Cox explained that he told Button the citation had no merit and would only serve as a catalyst for Ener to make trouble for the county. Judge Cox admitted that he unilaterally dismissed the citation against Ener, and that the prosecutor played no part in the process. Judge Cox stated that his decision was based on his belief that justice would be served by dismissing the citation. The November 25, 2009 meeting and conversation between Judge Cox and Button gained local media attention. RELEVANT STANDARDS 1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. Canon 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part, that a judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit, nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding. Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states in pertinent part that a judge may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice. CONCLUSION The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Cox failed to comply with the law by unilaterally dismissing a criminal case without the consent of the State and was swayed to dismiss the criminal case based on improper ex parte communications with the defendant and the fear of a potential lawsuit. This conduct was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of the judges duties and cast public discredit upon the judiciary and the administration of justice, in violation of Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The Commission concludes that Judge Coxs conduct, as described herein, constituted willful or persistent violations of Canons 2A, 3B(2) and 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. ***************************** In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 2A, 3B(2) and 6C(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and Article V, 1-a(6)A of the Texas

2.

3.

4.

Updated February 8, 2012 Constitution, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Jeff Cox, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Hemphill, Sabine County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission. The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this 8th day of September, 2011.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ________________________________ Honorable Jorge C. Rangel, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Updated February 8, 2012

BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC No. 12-0048-JP

Public Admonition
Honorable Bobby R. Nicholds JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 3 TRINITY, TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS
During its meeting on December 7-8, 2011, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of allegations against the Honorable Bobby R. Nicholds, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Trinity, Trinity County, Texas. Judge Nicholds was advised by letter of the Commissions concerns and provided written responses. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusion:

Findings of Fact
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Bobby R. Nicholds was Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Trinity, Trinity County, Texas. On or about April 22, 2011, a defendant was arrested following a grand jury indictment charging her with one count of burglary of a habitation. Following the arrest, Justice of the Peace Bernie Beard magistrated the defendant and set bond at $50,000.00 (hereinafter the first bond). While out on bond, the defendant was indicted on three separate counts of burglary of a habitation. On June 7, 2011, Judge Beard magistrated the defendant on the new burglary charges and set an additional bond of $35,000.00 (hereinafter the second bond). At the time of the arrests, Judge Nicholds was living with the defendants mother.

Updated February 8, 2012 7. After the second bond was set, Judge Nicholds immediately telephoned Judge Beard to express his opinion that an additional bond should not have been set and that the defendant should have been released from custody under the first bond. When the defendant was placed in a patrol car, Judge Nicholds approached the vehicle to speak to the deputy constables before they transported her to the county jail. During the conversation, Judge Nicholds made several comments indicating that he was a good friend of the defendants mother; that the defendants mother lived with him; and that the defendants mother could not afford to post a second bond. Judge Nicholds repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction that a second bond had been set, and stated (referring to Judge Beard): Im going to try to get that mans job. Thats what Im going to do. Hes just picking on people . . . Damn Bastard. Judge Nicholds also told the deputies that he thought the constables office was picking on the defendant. The entire conversation was recorded on the patrol cars dash-cam video. Shortly thereafter, Judge Nicholds contacted the district attorney who was prosecuting the defendants case. In that conversation, Judge Nicholds expressed frustration that Judge Beard had set an additional bond in the case, and stated his opinion that the defendant should have been released on the first bond. Judge Nicholds subsequently spoke with the district judge in whose court the defendants cases were pending, and again expressed his opinion that Judge Beard should not have set a second bond in the case. Thereafter, the district judge, upon agreement with the district attorney, discharged the second bond, and released the defendant from custody under the first bond. Shortly after the defendant was released, a deputy constable observed what he believed to be suspicious activities at an apartment that the defendant shared with her boyfriend, and reported his suspicions to the defendants landlord. When Judge Nicholds learned about the deputys report, he contacted the landlord and advised him that he believed the defendant was not doing anything wrong and that everything was okay at the apartment. Judge Nicholds also spoke with the deputy constable who made the report and accused him of harassing the defendant. Shortly thereafter, Judge Nicholds contacted the constables office and spoke with a constable about the deputys report. During the conversation, which the constable recorded, Judge Nicholds informed him that the defendants mother was his good friend, and that, in his opinion, the defendant was not doing anything wrong.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19.

Updated February 8, 2012 20. Judge Nicholds also advised the constable that he had already spoken to the defendants landlord about the situation, explaining that he did not want the defendant to lose her place. Throughout the conversation, Judge Nicholds accused the constables office of harassing and picking on the defendant, and complained that the constables deputies ke[pt] going by the defendants apartment. Judge Nicholds also repeatedly requested that the constables office leave the defendant and him alone. Judge Nicholds assured the constable that he was not trying to tell him how to do his job, but stated that he would protect anybody that he believed the constables office was harassing.

21.

22. 23.

Relevant Standard
Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part: A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

Conclusion
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Nicholds allowed his relationship with a criminal defendant and her mother to influence his conduct and judgment, causing him to repeatedly intercede in a pending criminal matter on behalf of the defendant. The judges activities on behalf of the defendant lent the prestige of his judicial office to advance her and her mothers private interests, particularly when he (1) contacted the prosecutor and the district judge in an attempt to influence them to discharge the second bond and to release her from custody on her first bond; and (2) attempted to influence law enforcement officials to curtail any investigation into possible on-going criminal activities by the defendant. The Commission concludes that Judge Nicholds conduct in this matter constituted willful and/or persistent violations of Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

***************************
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commissions decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION to the Honorable Bobby R. Nicholds, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Trinity, Trinity County, Texas. Pursuant to the authority contained in Article V, 1-a(8) of the Texas Constitution, it is ordered that the actions described above be made the subject of a PUBLIC ADMONITION by the Commission.

Updated February 8, 2012

The Commission has taken this action in a continuing effort to protect the public confidence in the judicial system and to assist the states judiciary in its efforts to embody the principles and values set forth in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Issued this the 3rd day of January, 2012. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Tom Cunningham, Chair State Commission on Judicial Conduct