This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a magistrate judge who engaged in multiple instances of judicial misconduct, including delays in signing and filing judgments, failure to impose mandatory minimum sentences, failure to submit required records to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and engaging in ex parte communications regarding a pending case. These actions violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted willful misconduct in office (paras 4-8).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, June 28, 1999: The Commission filed a verified petition for discipline with the Supreme Court of New Mexico, recommending public censure, suspension without pay, probation, and payment of costs (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the magistrate judge's actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted willful misconduct, warranting public censure, suspension, probation, and payment of costs (paras 1, 3).
- Respondent (Magistrate Judge): Admitted to the factual and legal conclusions in a stipulation and agreement with the Commission and accepted the proposed disciplinary measures (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the magistrate judge's actions constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures were 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, six months of unsupervised probation, and payment of costs incurred by the Judicial Standards Commission (paras 1, 10).
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, including delays in filing judgments, failure to impose mandatory sentences, failure to submit required records, and ex parte communications, violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations undermined public confidence in the judiciary and constituted willful misconduct in office. The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the misconduct and ensure compliance with judicial standards. The respondent was ordered to comply fully with the imposed discipline and the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 4-9).