This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A magistrate judge engaged in misconduct by altering or failing to properly report case dispositions to the New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles (MVD). In one instance, the judge falsely reported a DWI conviction as dismissed, and in another, agreed to withhold a case record from the MVD upon a defendant's completion of probation. Additionally, the judge failed to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in a separate case (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, June 25, 1999: The Commission and the magistrate judge entered into a stipulation and agreement regarding the judge's misconduct, which was later submitted to the Supreme Court for approval (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Recommended disciplinary measures, including public censure, a two-week suspension without pay, participation in a mentor program, six months of unsupervised probation, and payment of costs incurred by the Commission (para 1).
- Respondent (Magistrate Judge): Admitted to the factual and legal conclusions of the misconduct and agreed to the proposed disciplinary measures (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the magistrate judge's actions constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- Were the recommended disciplinary measures appropriate for the judge's misconduct?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico approved the recommended disciplinary measures, including public censure, a two-week suspension without pay, participation in a mentor program, six months of unsupervised probation, and payment of costs incurred by the Commission (paras 1, 8).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Joseph F. Baca, Justice Gene E. Franchini, Justice Patricio M. Serna, and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes:
The Court found that the magistrate judge's actions violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including the duty to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid impropriety, and maintain professional competence. The judge's conduct also constituted willful misconduct in office and potentially violated statutory requirements for mandatory record filing in traffic cases. The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards. The judge was ordered to comply fully with the imposed discipline and the Code of Judicial Conduct, with the stipulation that any further violations during the probationary period would result in resumed formal proceedings (paras 4-7).