Miss. Comm'n On Judicial Performance v. Darby

• Decision Date: 31 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2013–JP–01400–SCT.,2013–JP–01400–SCT.
• Citation: 143 So.3d 564
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Leigh Ann DARBY.

143 So.3d 564

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

v.Leigh Ann DARBY.

No. 2013–JP–01400–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 31, 2014.

John B. Toney, attorney for appellant.

Alan D. Lancaster, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance (Commission) filed a “Formal Complaint” charging Leigh Ann Darby, Youth Court Referee, Drug Court Judge, and Family Master, Tate County, Mississippi, with judicial misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. The Commission and Judge Darby entered into an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation” providing that Judge Darby had violated Canons 1, 2(A), 3(B)(2), 3(B)(4), and 3(B)(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution, and recommended that she be removed from office, prohibited from holding judicial office in the future, and assessed costs of $200. The Commission unanimously accepted and adopted the “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.” “This Court now conducts its ‘mandated review of the Commission's recommendationconsistent with Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A, Miss. Comm'n on Jud. Perf. R. 10, M.R.A.P. 16(a), and our case law.’ ” Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Darby (“Darby I”), 75 So.3d 1037, 1039 (Miss.2011) (quoting Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209, 210 (Miss.2006)).

AGREED FACTS

¶ 2. This is not Judge Darby's first appearance before the Commission or this Court. In Darby I, Judge Darby entered an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation” with the Commission in which she admitted that “she wrongly imposed sanctions against [a] mother for contempt of court without first affording her the due process rights required in a criminal contempt matter.” Darby I, 75 So.3d at 1041. This Court agreed with the Commission's and Judge Darby's recommended sanction and ordered that Judge Darby be publicly reprimanded, fined $500, and assessed costs of $100. Id. at 1044.

¶ 3. In the present case, Judge Darby stipulates to multiple incidents in which she denied citizens their due-process rights. Between May 7, 2008, and September 7, 2010, she “unlawfully ordered the incarceration of” eight parents and denied each his or her “constitutional right of due process” prior to being “order[ed] ... to jail for conduct allegedly occurring outside of court.” On or about July 8, 2011, three fifteen-year-old minors (two girls and one boy) were arrested by Senatobia police after a neighbor of one of the children complained that they had walked across her yard. Judge Darby, in her official capacity as youth court referee and youth court judge, but without authority of law, ordered that the three minors be drug-tested while in custody. Without conducting any hearings, Judge Darby ordered the minors to be taken into custody and transported to a detention facility in Alcorn County, Mississippi. Unrepresented by counsel and denied due process, the minors spent Friday until the following Monday in the detention facility.¹

¶ 4. On October 3, 2011, the Tate County Board of Supervisors passed a “No Confidence Resolution” regarding Judge Darby. That resolution declared that it was not in the best of interest of Tate County that she continue in her judicial capacity and called upon the senior chancellor of the district to remove her from all Tate County judicial offices. Judge Darby was suspended from office for a period of sixty days. Thereafter, she tendered her resignation to the senior chancellor.

¶ 5. On May 29, 2013, the Commission filed a “Formal Complaint” charging Judge Darby with violation of Canons 1,² 2A,³3(B)(2),⁴ 3(B)(4),⁵ and 3(B)(8) ⁶ of the Code of Judicial Conduct and engaging in willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. Judge Darby did not file an answer to the “Formal Complaint.”

¶ 6. Subsequently, the Commission and Judge Darby filed an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.” Judge Darby stipulated that she had violated Canons 1, 2(A), 3(B)(2), and 3(B)(8) when she “wrongfully incarcerated eight parents and three minors without first affording [each] basic due process rights.” Judge Darby also stipulated that she “frequently violated Canon 3(B)(4) when she treated litigants and others with whom she dealt in her official capacity in an abusive, belittling, impatient, unprofessional, and discourteous manner.” Judge Darby further stipulated that she “violate[d] § 177A of the Mississippi Constitution ... as said conduct constitutes misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The jointly proposed recommendation was that she “be removed from judicial office and prohibited from holding judicial office in the future and assessed costs of court in the sum of two hundred dollars ($200).” The Commission unanimously “accept[ed] and adopt[ed] the Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.”

¶ 7. Pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution and Rule 10(A) of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, the matter was presented to this Court. SeeMiss. Const. art. 6, § 177A; Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance R. 10(A). On September 19, 2013, the Commission and Judge Darby filed a “Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations Filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance” and a “Memorandum Brief in Support of Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendation Filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance.”

ANALYSIS

¶ 8. The Mississippi Constitution vests this Court with “the power, ‘[o]n recommendation of the commission on judicial performance,’ to ‘remove from office, suspend, fine or publicly censure or reprimand any justice or judge of this state for ... willful misconduct in office ... or [ ] conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute[.]’ ” Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So.3d 294, 298–299 (Miss.2013) (quoting Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A). While it “accord[s] careful consideration [of] the findings of fact and recommendations of the Commission, or its committee[,]” this Court “is not bound by the Commission's findings, and ... may impose additional sanctions.” Id. at 299 (citing Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Thompson, 80 So.3d 86, 88 (Miss.2012); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Osborne, 16 So.3d 16, 19 (Miss.2009)). “This is true even when the Commission and the judge enter into a joint recommendation-this Court's acceptance of the joint recommendation is not a certainty.” Id. (citing Sanford, 941 So.2d at 217–18 (Miss.2006)).

¶ 9. The jointly recommended sanction requires us to recognize the limits of our constitutionally vested powers in these matters. Included in the recommended sanctions, agreed to by Judge Darby, is that she be “prohibited from holding judicial office in the future.” Our constitution does not expressly empower this Court to order such a prohibition.⁷

I. Whether Judge Darby committed misconduct.

¶ 10. Judge Darby acknowledges that she was frequently and unnecessarily confrontational toward litigants and staff and that she treated litigants and others with whom she dealt in her official capacity in an abusive, belittling, impatient, unprofessional, and discourteous manner. She admits that her conduct in this regard violated Canon 3(B)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This Court has stated, “[w]e have made it quite clear that the power granted to judges does not license them to be disrespectful to the lawyers and citizens who appear in their courtrooms; and that judges must conduct themselves with appropriate judicial demeanor.” Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Smith, 78 So.3d 889, 893 (Miss.2011). Although the record is silent as to any specific instances of conduct in which Judge Darby acted toward others in a manner ill-fit for a member of the judiciary, we take Judge Darby at her word that she “lack[s] the requisite judicial temperament to serve in any judicial capacity and lacks control over her temper which affects her judgment resulting in abuse of her judicial authority.”

¶ 11. Judge Darby also acknowledges that she “wrongfully incarcerated” eight parents and three minors “without first affording such citizens basic due process rights.” One need look no further than Judge Darby's first appearance before this Court to recognize the impropriety of her conduct. In Darby I, Judge Darby was sanctioned by this Court after she admitted that “she wrongfully impos[ed] sanctions against [a] mother for contempt of court without first affording her the due process rights required in a criminal contempt matter.” Darby I, 75 So.3d at 1041–42.

II. Whether the recommended sanction is appropriate.

¶ 12. Judge Darby's resignation “does not foreclose the need to apply appropriate sanctions[,]” for “a judge should not be able to avoid discipline by simply resigning or voluntarily leaving office.” Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bustin, 71 So.3d 598, 606 (Miss.2011). See Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. DeLaughter, 29 So.3d 750 (Miss.2010) (judge removed from office even though he already had resigned); Osborne, 16 So.3d 16 (Miss.2009) (judge removed from office even though he already had resigned); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So.2d 180 (Miss.1996) (judge removed from office even though he had not sought re-election and was no longer in office).

¶ 13. To determine the appropriate sanctions, this Court...