Bell, In re

• Decision Date: 17 February 1995
• Citation: 894 S.W.2d 119
• Parties: In re Betty Brock BELL, Judicial Disciplinary Proceeding.
• Court: Texas Special Court of Review

Page 119

894 S.W.2d 119

In re Betty Brock BELL, Judicial Disciplinary Proceeding.

Special Court of Review Appointed by the Supreme Court.

Feb. 17, 1995.

Betty Brock Bell, pro se.

Mike Discoll, Harris County Atty., Cedric K. Loeb, Deputy Div. Chief, State Trial Div., Harris County Atty's. Office, Houston, for appellant.

State Com'n on Judicial Conduct, Austin, for appellee.

Robert C. Flowers, Executive Director, William E. Hornung, Gen. Counsel, Austin, for appellee (Examiners).

Before WALKER, P.J., and LARSEN and JONES, JJ.

OPINION

LARSEN, Justice.

Judge Betty Brock Bell appeals her public admonition issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Appeal is by trial de novo to a special court of review ¹ appointed by the Texas Supreme Court.

BACKGROUND

Betty Brock Bell is Justice of the Peace for Precinct Seven, Place One, Harris County, Texas. On November 15, 1993, a man confronted her in the hallway near her courtroom, telling her it was a disgrace for her to be over an hour late to court after lunch leaving all the citizens with business in her court waiting. Judge Bell immediately held the man in direct contempt, committed him to jail for three days, and fined him $100, the maximum punishment a justice of the peace may assess. ² The same day, a higher court issued a writ of habeas corpus for the man's release and later withdrew the writ on November 24, 1993. Judge Bell reissued the arrest order on January 10, 1994.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct began an inquiry into this matter on November 30, 1993, when it received a complaint from a citizen of Spring, Texas, which read in its entirety:

If the attached article is factual, then Justice of the Peace Betty Brock Bell needs to be removed from the bench immediately, before she can make any more of a mockery of the judicial system.

Attached to the letter was a newspaper article describing the incident between Judge Bell and the man in the hallway. The judicial commission requested a written response from Judge Bell, which she supplied. The commission made further inquiry including contact with the attorney of the man held in contempt, who at that time also filed a complaint in writing. Judge Bell appeared before the commission in person, and filed further written response to the complaint. The commission issued a public admonition, finding that Judge Bell had wilfully violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Bell appealed.

PROCEDURE FOR JUDICIAL CONDUCT INQUIRY

The Texas Constitution provides that any judge ³ may be removed from office, disciplined, or censured for:

[W]illful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, 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. TEX. CONST. art. 5, § 1-a(6)(A).

The Texas Government Code, together with rules promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court by constitutional authority, outlines the procedure for conducting an investigation into alleged misconduct by a judge. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.001; RULES FOR THE REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES, 56 TEX.B.J. 823 (1993), Rule 1. This is the procedure that has been followed in Judge Bell's case.

A preliminary investigation may be initiated by the commission's receipt of a written complaint, upon its own motion, or otherwise. RULES FOR THE REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES, 56 TEX.B.J. 824 (1993), Rule 3(a); see also In re Thoma 873 S.W.2d 477, 483 (Tex.Rev.Trib.1994). If preliminary investigation reveals that the allegations are frivolous or unfounded, the commission terminates proceedings. RULES FOR THE REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES, 56 TEX.B.J. 824 (1993), Rule 3(b). If the commission determines there is sufficient cause to believe that the charges may have merit, the commission institutes a full investigation with notice to the judge in writing. The commission may request the judge's response. Id. Rule 4. The commission has subpoena powers for purposes of conducting its investigation, and the commission may offer the judge an opportunity to appear before it informally during such investigation. Id. Rule 5(a) and 6(a). Upon completion of its investigation, the commission may dismiss the complaint, issue a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand, or require that the judge obtain additional training or education, or institute formal proceedings concerning public censure, removal, or retirement. TEX. CONST. art. 5, § 1-a(8). If the commission determines that an informal sanction is appropriate, it notifies the complainant and judge in writing. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.033. Upon receipt of any type of sanction (but not a decision to institute formal removal proceedings) a judge may file with the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, within thirty days of the commission's issuance of the sanction, a written request for appointment of a special court of review. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.034(b); RULES FOR THE REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES, 56 TEX.B.J. 825 (1993), Rule 9(a). The chief justice then selects a special court of review by lot within ten days, which court is composed of three court of appeals justices not serving in the district in which the petitioning judge serves, nor serving on the judicial commission. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.034(c). The commission files with the petitioner and each justice a charging document within 15 days after selection of the court of review. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.034(d). The special court of review holds a trial de novo within 30 days of filing of the charging document. The court issues its decision as to the proper disposition of the appeal within sixty days of the trial de novo. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.034(h). The special court of review's decision is not appealable. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 33.034(i).

THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION'S CHARGE

The judicial commission charged that Judge Bell wilfully violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, ⁴ which provide:

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. 2A

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. 3B(2)

A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.... 3B(4)

A judge should dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly. 3B(9)

The commission found that Judge Bell had violated each of these canons, and made such conduct the subject of a public admonition. We review that decision de novo.

FACTS

We find the following facts were established by a preponderance of the credible evidence at the trial de novo held in this cause December 20, 1994.

Bruce Caress is a businessman in Stafford, Texas. On November 15, 1993, he was in Betty Brock Bell's courtroom on behalf of his stepson, Ryan Sheiner, who had been charged with the misdemeanor offense of minor in possession of alcohol. Mr. Caress was at court to request a continuance on behalf of his stepson, who was attending school in Austin and had a test the day his court appearance was scheduled. Ryan Sheiner and his co-defendant had hired a Houston lawyer, Jack Lee, who was also present to request a continuance on behalf of both young men.

Judge Betty Brock Bell had tried a civil case that morning that lasted until noon. She went to lunch following the completion of that case, despite the scheduling of approximately twenty criminal cases for trial at 12:30 p.m. that day. ⁵ Judge Bell does not normally take the bench for the calling of her docket, in any event, but has instructed her court clerk to call the names of all defendants. The clerk does not call court to order or explain the procedure at that time, she simply begins calling names. No one in Judge Bell's court tells defendants when they might expect to speak with the judge.

On November 15, after their names were called, defendants were asked to confer individually with the assistant district attorney in the jury room across the hall from the courtroom. This, too, is the usual procedure for Judge Bell's criminal trial docket. The purpose of this interview is to work out plea bargains, discuss motions for continuance, and the like. Only after the assistant district attorney has spoken with everyone on the docket will Judge Bell take the bench, usually between 2 and 3 p.m. for a 12:30 p.m. trial docket. No one presides over the court until that time; no one explains this procedure to waiting defendants. All defendants, and their attorneys if they have them, are generally required to wait until the assistant district attorney has finished with the entire docket before the court takes up any business at all.

On this particular day, Mr. Lee and one other attorney (Mr. Ronald Mock, representing his mother-in-law on a speeding ticket) had business on Judge Bell's docket; everyone else was pro se. The two attorneys, who knew Judge Bell by sight, saw her arrive back from lunch around 1:45 p.m. Mr. Mock called to her, asking if he could visit with her about his case, as the ticketing officer was not present and he wanted to move for dismissal. Judge Bell agreed to talk with Mr. Mock in the jury room where the district attorney was talking with defendants. She entered the jury room, discussed the case with Mr. Mock and Assistant District Attorney Lester Blizzard, granted the State's oral motion for continuance, and denied Mr. Mock's oral motion to dismiss. While in the jury room, she was next approached by Mr. Lee, who requested a deferred adjudication or alternatively a continuance for his...