Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Darby

• Decision Date: 01 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2011–JP–01280–SCT.,2011–JP–01280–SCT.
• Citation: 75 So.3d 1037
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Leigh Ann DARBY.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

75 So.3d 1037

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

v.Leigh Ann DARBY.

No. 2011–JP–01280–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 1, 2011.

John B. Toney, Darlene D. Ballard, attorneys for appellant.

Alan D. Lancaster, Grenada, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

RANDOLPH, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance (“Commission”) filed a “Formal Complaint” charging Leigh Ann Darby, Youth Court Judge, Tate County, Mississippi, with violating various Canons of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and with “willful misconduct in office” and “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute[,]” actionable pursuant to Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A. Ultimately, the Commission and Judge Darby filed an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation” which provided that Judge Darby had violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and had engaged in conduct actionable pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution, and recommended that she be publicly reprimanded, fined $500, and assessed costs of $100. The Commission unanimously agreed to “accept and adopt” that “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.” This Court now conducts its “mandated review of the Commission's recommendation consistent with Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A, Miss. Comm'n on Jud. Perf. R. 10, M.R.A.P. 16(a), and our case law.” Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209, 210 (Miss.2006).

FACTS¹

¶ 2. On August 13, 2009, T.J., the fifteen-year-old daughter of A.L.J. (“mother”), was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. On August 14, 2009, following a detention hearing in the Youth Court of Tate County, Judge Darby issued a “Detention Order” which provided, inter alia, that T.J. was to be placed on “strict house arrest.” Thereafter, a formal petition was filed, and an adjudication hearing was conducted. During that hearing, issues regarding T.J.'s mental health were raised, her need for counseling and treatment was discussed, and Judge Darby learned that T.J. did not have medical insurance coverage. Judge Darby then verbally directed the mother to apply for Medicaid benefits on behalf of T.J.

¶ 3. On June 7, 2010, following a subsequent arrest of T.J., Judge Darby conducted another detention hearing. During that hearing, Judge Darby learned that T.J. still did not have medical insurance coverage, despite the fact that the mother's employer offered health-care coverage.² Judge Darby then “chastised” the mother for failing to have T.J. insured, verbally directed the mother to file for Medicaid, and verbally directed the mother to take T.J. to Parkwood Behavioral Health Systems (“Parkwood”) in Olive Branch, Mississippi, for evaluation and assessment.

¶ 4. On June 8, 2010, based solely upon Judge Darby's verbal directions, ³ the mother took T.J. to Parkwood for evaluation and assessment. While the Parkwood staff determined that T.J. would benefit from inpatient treatment, such treatment was not commenced, because T.J. was not insured. Thereafter, the mother applied for Medicaid on T.J.'s behalf, but was denied because she did not meet eligibility requirements. However, T.J. was approved for coverage under the Mississippi Children's Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”).

¶ 5. On June 14, 2010, Judge Darby conducted a review hearing and learned that T.J. had been approved for CHIP coverage. Based thereon, Judge Darby verbally ordered the mother to schedule an appointment for T.J. at Communicare, a regional mental health-care facility, and to take T.J. back to Parkwood for a second evaluation and assessment.

¶ 6. On July 6, 2010, based solely upon Judge Darby's verbal directions,⁴ the mother took T.J. to Communicare. On the morning of July 16, 2010, based solely upon Judge Darby's verbal directions, the mother took T.J. to Parkwood for her second evaluation and assessment. There, the Parkwood staff informed the mother that CHIP would provide coverage for only a ten- to fifteen-day course of daily outpatient treatment from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. The Parkwood staff further advised the mother that she would be required to sign a guaranty agreement, taking personal responsibility for any charges that CHIP refused to pay. Due to the transportation costs associated with the sixty-seven-mile round-trip commute from the mother's home to Parkwood, and the adverse impact of that daily commute upon her employment, the mother concluded that it would not be financially possible for T.J. to participate in the Parkwood outpatient treatment program. The mother then called the Tate County Youth Services Counselor (“counselor”) and expressed these concerns. The counselor contacted Judge Darby and, following their conversation, informed the mother that if she refused to leave T.J. at Parkwood, then she would be held in contempt by Judge Darby and could be jailed. Despite that warning, T.J. and her mother left Parkwood that morning.

¶ 7. At 11:30 a.m., the counselor called the mother and instructed her to be in Judge Darby's court for a 2:00 p.m. hearing. It is undisputed that (1) no pleadings had been filed which alleged that the mother was in contempt of court, (2) the mother was not provided written notice of the hearing, (3) the mother was not given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the hearing, and (4) the mother was not afforded the opportunity to obtain counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, of which there is no record, the mother was found in contempt of court for failing to admit T.J. for treatment at Parkwood. Judge Darby ordered the mother to report to the Tate County Jail at 3:00 p.m., to be taken into the custody of the Tate County Sheriff, and to be held there until further order of the court. Three days later, on July 19, 2010, the mother was released from custody after being brought back before Judge Darby.

¶ 8. On December 18, 2010, based upon the citizen complaint of the mother, the Commission filed a “Formal Complaint” against Judge Darby. The “Formal Complaint” provided that Judge Darby had violated various Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and engaged in conduct actionable pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. Counsel for Judge Darby filed her “Answer to Formal Complaint.”

¶ 9. Subsequently, “in lieu of a hearing[,]” the Commission and Judge Darby, through her counsel, filed an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.” Judge Darby agreed that she had violated Canons 1, ⁵ 2A,⁶ and 3B(2) ⁷ of the Code of Judicial Conduct “when she wrongly imposed sanctions against [the mother] for contempt of court without first affording her the due process rights required in a criminal contempt matter.” She further agreed that such conduct was actionable pursuant to Section 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 to the Commission was a public reprimand, a $500 fine, and assessed costs of $100.

¶ 10. The Commission unanimously agreed to “accept and adopt the Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation and recommend to the Mississippi Supreme Court that [Judge Darby] be publicly reprimanded, fined $500.00 and assessed cost[s].” That recommendation was incorporated in the “Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation,” which revealed that the Commission's conclusion was based upon the evidence presented, Judge Darby's history with the Commission, the mitigating factor of Judge Darby “acknowledg[ing] her actions and ... cooperat[ing] fully with the Commission in its investigation [,]” and the other factors delineated in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155 (Miss.2004), overruled in part by Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So.3d 172 (Miss.2011).

¶ 11. This matter has been presented to this Court, pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution and Rule 10A of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. See Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A; Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance R. 10A.

ISSUES

¶ 12. This Court will consider:

(1) Whether Judge Darby's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(2) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and was actionable pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution.

(2) Whether Judge Darby should be publicly reprimanded, fined $500 pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution, and assessed costs of $100.

ANALYSIS

¶ 13. “Our state constitution states that this Court has authority to sanction a judge ‘[o]n recommendation of the commission on judicial performance....’ ... [I]n cases coming to us from the [Commission], the Court, in making a ‘final determination of the appropriate action to be taken in each case, ... conduct[s] an independent inquiry of the record’ ....” Boone, 60 So.3d at 176 (quoting Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A (1890); In re Anderson, 412 So.2d 743, 746 (Miss.1982)).

I. Whether Judge Darby's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(2) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and was actionable pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution.

¶ 14. In the “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation,” Judge Darby acknowledges that, by “wrongly impos[ing] sanctions against [the mother] for contempt of court without first affording her the due process rights required in a criminal contempt matter[,]” she violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and engaged in conduct actionable pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. This Court agrees.

¶ 15. According to Judge Darby, the power she exercised was one of criminal contempt.⁸ A finding of criminal contempt was based upon...