In re Coleman

• Decision Date: 22 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 118450,118450
• Citation: 474 P.3d 354 (Mem)
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING Kendra COLEMAN, District Judge, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

474 P.3d 354 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING Kendra COLEMAN, District Judge, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

No. 118450

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

FILED June 22, 2020*

Editor's Note: This Order is combined with the Court's earlier Order dated December 3, 2019, which was previously published at 454 P.3d 1280.

ORDER

Noma D. Gurich, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶1 This matter comes before the Court on June 22, 2020 for consideration of the attached Petition for filing in the Trial Division of the Court on the Judiciary.

¶2 Upon review, the Petition is hereby adopted and the Chief Justice is authorized to execute and to file the Petition in the Court on the Judiciary. This Order shall be attached as an Exhibit to the executed Petition.

¶3 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

Gurich, C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, and Kane, JJ.; Kuehn, S.J. and Wiseman, S.J., concur;

Colbert, J. and Reif (by separate writing), S.J., concur in part; dissent in part;

Darby, V.C.J. and Combs, J., recused.

Attachment

IN THE COURT ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

TRIAL DIVISION

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioner,

vs.

KENDRA COLEMAN, Respondent.

No. CJTD-2020-1

PETITION

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma (Petitioner) alleges the following:

I. Authority

1. This Petition is filed pursuant to Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 7-A, § 4(a) and Rule 9, 5 O.S.2011, Ch. 1, App. 7. The allegations are based upon information forwarded to the Supreme Court by the Council on Judicial Complaints and the Respondent's responses.

II. Respondent's Judicial Office

2. The Respondent, Kendra Coleman, is now and has been a District Judge in Oklahoma County, in the 7th Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma, exercising judicial power under the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Oklahoma at all times material to the allegations contained in this Petition. She was elected to the seat in November of 2018 and took the bench on January 1, 2019. She had no prior judicial experience.

III. Procedural History

3.

On October 14, 2019, the Council on Judicial Complaints referred its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation on Complaint Nos. COC-073 and COC-19-114 to the Supreme Court. The complaints primarily involved the Respondent's failure to file tax returns or to pay taxes, violation of Ethics Commission rules governing campaign financing and reporting, and a dispute with the District Attorney regarding recusal. The Council recommended that the Respondent and the alleged violations be made the subject of removal proceedings before the Court on the Judiciary.

4. The Supreme Court entered an Order on December 3, 2019, in In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning Coleman, 2019 OK 77, 454 P.3d 1280, rejecting the Council's recommendation for removal proceedings, but reprimanding the Respondent for failing to comply with Ethics Commission campaign rules, admonishing the Respondent to impress upon the Respondent the imperative of timely addressing all personal legal obligations that arise during or reflect upon her judicial service, and placing the Respondent on Probation with conditions.

5. The conditions required the Respondent to (1) report monthly to the Council concerning the tax delinquencies, (2) complete at least five mentoring sessions with an experienced Justice or Judge, and (3) comply with all local, state and federal laws, and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court deferred final discipline on the felony charge, which arose from the neglect of state tax obligations, until the charge is resolved. The Order authorized the Council to bring any breach of the conditions to the Chief Justice, and provided that the failure to comply with the conditions for deferred final discipline can be the bases for additional discipline.

6. On April 23, 2020, the Council presented the Chief Justice with 8 additional complaints.¹ The Council reported that the Respondent failed to sufficiently report to the Council regarding tax deficiencies, and failed to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Council again recommended removal proceedings pursuant to 20 O.S.2011, § 1659. On June 1, 2020, the Council filed a supplemental report to the April 23, 2020 filing, primarily regarding the Respondent's failure to follow proper statutory procedure in issuing a direct contempt citation. The Respondent has responded through counsel and contests that she is guilty of any ground for removal, and denies that she has willfully violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

IV. Violations

7. The Council found that the Respondent, Kendra Coleman, as a duly elected and acting District Judge of the 7th Judicial District, exercising judicial power under the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Oklahoma, engaged in conduct prohibited by Art. 7-A, § 1(b) of the Oklahoma Constitution, and 20 O.S.2011, § 1404(C). The Council concluded that the allegations of the complaints and discovered by investigation were proven by clear and convincing evidence to the extent necessary to constitute oppression in office, prohibited by Art. 7-A § 1(b) of the Oklahoma Constitution, and violations of Canons 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 5 O.S.2011, Ch. 1, App. 4. Violation by a judicial officer of these provisions provides grounds for removal from office under Art. 7-A § 1(b) of the Oklahoma Constitution and 20 O.S.2011, § 1404(C).

8. The grounds upon which removal from office is sought² are as follows:

(1) Gross neglect of duty;

(2) Oppression in office; and

(3) Other grounds specified by the Legislature.

The other grounds specified by the Legislature are violations by a judicial officer of the Code of Judicial Conduct 20 O.S.2011, § 1404(C).

9. The violations of Canons 1, 2, and 4, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Rules thereunder, include the following:

The preamble of the Code, which provides, "Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at ail times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all time to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence."

a. Canon 1, which provides, "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Rule 1.1 provides that a "judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct." Rule 1.2 provides that a "judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

b. Canon 2, which provides, "A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently, and Diligently." Rule 2.3 provides, "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice." Rule 2.4(C) provides, "A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge." Rule 2.5(A) provides, "A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently." Rule 2.5(B) provides, "A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business." Rule 2.6(A) provides that a "judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law." Rule 2.8(B) provides that a "judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity ...." Rule 2.11 (A)(1) provides, "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or a personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding." Rule 2.16(A) provides, "A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies." Rule 2.16(B) provides, "A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer."

c. Canon 4, which provides that a "judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the Judiciary," Rule 4.2(A) provides, "A judicial candidate in a public election shall: (1) comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election campaign fundraising laws and regulations of the State of Oklahoma." Rule 4.4(A) provides, "A judicial candidate subject to public election may establish a campaign committee to manage and conduct a campaign for the candidate, subject to the provisions of this Code. The candidate is responsible for ensuring that his or her campaign committee complies with applicable provisions of this Code and other applicable law." Rule 4.4(B) provides, "A judicial candidate subject to public election shall direct his or her campaign committee: (2) not to solicit or accept contributions for a candidate's current campaign more than 180 days before the beginning of the filing period for the judicial election nor more than 60 days after the last election in which the candidate participated; and (3) Candidates for judicial office subject to public elections shall direct their campaign committees to comply with all applicable statutory requirements for disclosure of campaign contributions, and to file with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission at the time and in the manner specified by the Commission a report...