IN RE SINGLETON, S.Ct. No. S-1-SC-35410 (Filed February 11,
2016)
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
NO. 2015-049
IN THE MATTER OF SARAH M. SINGLETON,
First Judicial District Judge
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
Randall D. Roybal, Deborah L. Borio,
Albuquerque, NM, for Judicial Standards Commission
James A. Hall, L.L.C., James A. Hall,
Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice. PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice, CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice, JUDITH K.
NAKAMURA, Justice
{1} WHEREAS, this
matter came on for consideration by the Court upon the Judicial Standards
Commission’s petition to accept a stipulation agreement and consent to
discipline (Stipulation) entered into between the Commission and Hon. Sarah M.
Singleton (respondent), who is a district court judge in the First Judicial
District;
{2} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent admits to the following acts:
a. On or
about January 24, 2015, in the case of Alfredo Morga, et al. v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., et al., D-101-CV-2012-01906, respondent permitted and
engaged in impermissible ex parte communications with plaintiff’s
attorney while the case was still pending before respondent;
b. On or
about January 24, 2015, in the case of Alfredo Morga, et al. v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., et al., D-101-CV-2012-01906, respondent created the
appearance of impropriety by engaging in a phone conversation with plaintiff’s
attorney that involved substantive matters and was outside the presence of the
other party or the other party’s attorney;
{3} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent admits that she violated Code of Judicial Conduct Rules
21-101, 21-102, 21-209(A) and
21-210(A) NMRA;
{4} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent admits that she engaged in
ex parte
communications contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct;
{5} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent denies that she engaged in willful misconduct and
further denies any malice, corrupt purpose, or dishonesty;
{6} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent acknowledges, however, that the facts support a
conclusion that she knew or should have known that her actions were beyond her
lawful authority and that such conduct falls within the Supreme Court’s
definition of bad faith;
{7} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, while the parties agree that violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, by itself, does not necessarily constitute willful misconduct,
respondent acknowledges and stipulates that the facts and evidence,
individually and taken together, may constitute willful misconduct in office
and one or more violations of the New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct and
provide sufficient basis for the New Mexico Supreme Court to impose discipline
pursuant to Article VI, Section 32, of the New Mexico Constitution;
{8} WHEREAS, the
Stipulation provides that, in stipulating to discipline, the following
non-exclusive factors in Judicial Standards Commission Rule 30 NMRA were
considered:
a. the
misconduct was an isolated instance;
b. the
misconduct occurred in respondent’s official capacity;
c. the
misconduct created a highly publicized appearance of impropriety, which
reflects adversely on the judiciary;
d. respondent
immediately took corrective action and disclosed the ex parte
communication to all parties;
e. respondent
showed remorse, was candid and truthful with the Commission, and fully
cooperated with the Commission; and
f. respondent
is a well-respected judge with an excellent reputation and has no history of
discipline by the Supreme Court;
{9} WHEREAS, in the
Stipulation, respondent consents to imposition of a public censure by the
Supreme Court to be published in the
New Mexico Bar Bulletin; and
{10} WHEREAS, the Court
having considered the petition to accept stipulation agreement and consent to
discipline and having determined that acceptance of the stipulation is in the
best interests of the judiciary and the public, and the Court being otherwise
sufficiently advised, Chief Justice Barbara J. Vigil, Justice Petra Jimenez
Maes, Justice Edward L. Chávez, Justice Charles W. Daniels, and Justice Judith
K. Nakamura concurring;
{11} NOW, THEREFORE, IT
IS ORDERED that the petition is GRANTED and respondent, Hon. Sarah Singleton,
shall abide by all terms of the
Stipulation Agreement and Consent to
Discipline;
{12} IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this order shall serve as respondent’s PUBLIC CENSURE and shall be
published in the
Bar Bulletin; and
{13} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the file is UNSEALED in accordance with Rule
27-104(B) NMRA.
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice
PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice
EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice
CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice
JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice