In re Boothe, 110 So. 3d 1002

Judge Boothe sought removal for misconduct under La. Const. Art. V, §25(C) after the Judiciary Commission found violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(6), and 3C related to the Skipper case.
Skipper, a drug defendant, received an 80-year sentence; Boothe later reduced it to 12 years with consent of the DA, based on alleged “hardship” and alleged misconduct by Judge Johnson.
Transcripts of prison telephone conversations introduced at a hardship hearing suggested improper influence and a “conspiracy” theme against Judge Johnson; these conversations prompted media coverage and later scrutiny by the Commission.
KB: Boothe’s written and oral reasons for judgment criticized Judge Johnson and referenced the transcripts, raising concerns about impartiality and improper influence.
The Commission charged Counts I–IV alleging jurisdictional error, failure to recuse, and improper ex parte communications; this Court held hearings under Supreme Court Rule XXIII and ultimately suspended Boothe for one year without pay and ordered costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely motion to reconsider sentence constituted misconduct	Boothe entertained untimely motion despite lack of clear jurisdiction	Untimeliness waived by State and 916(3) permits post-judgment actions	Count I not proven by clear and convincing evidence
Whether Boothe’s failure to recuse violated Canons and law	Recusal was required due to bias/personal interest	No substantial bias; animosity with Judge Johnson insufficient	Count II proven; required recusal and violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3C, and Article V, §25(C)
Whether ex parte communications with Skipper violated Canons	Letters and communications improperly influenced judicial action	Some communications Scheduling; others cited as substantive	Count IV proven; ex parte communications violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A(6) and Article V, §25(C)

In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La. 1997) (clear and convincing standard; egregious legal error may support misconduct)
In re Huckaby, 656 So.2d 292 (La. 1995) (removal justified for serious misconduct; broader grounds exist beyond Whitaker)
In re Whitaker, 463 So.2d 1291 (La. 1985) (guides severity of discipline; removal reserved for serious misconduct)
In re Elloie, 921 So.2d 882 (La. 2006) (custom cannot excuse contravention of express law; censure potential for similar conduct)
In re Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259 (La. 1989) (Chaisson factors for discipline assessment; used in evaluating sanctions)