2013 Tex. LEXIS 210
Tex. Rev.2013Background
- Justice Sharp faced disciplinary proceedings for conduct on Jan 17, 2012 seeking to obtain release of a acquaintance’s daughter from Brazoria Juvenile Center; Commission reprimanded him initially; Special Court of Review held a trial de novo and evaluated canon violations and constitutional violations; proceedings used Deming factors and ADD mitigation arguments; desk and badge incidents cited as pattern of conduct but not charged; Public reprimand ultimately imposed.
- Examiners charged violations of Canon 2B (lending prestige and influencing) and Canon 3B(4) (demeanor) and Canons 4A(1)/(2) (extrajudicial conduct) and Article V, § 1-a(6)A (public discredit).
- Evidence showed Sharp identified himself as a Court of Appeals judge, pressed for release, and communicated with public officials to influence outcomes; he acknowledged anger and used harsh language and threats; ADD diagnosis offered as mitigating factor but not controlling.
- The court concluded Canon 2B and Canon 3B(4) violations were proven by a preponderance; it found no Canons 4A(1)/(2) violation; it held Article V, § 1-a(6)A violation proven by public discredit; discipline imposed was a public reprimand.
- Final judgment: public reprimand for willful violations of Canons 2B and 3B(4) and Tex. Const. art. V, § 1-a(6)A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canon 2B—lending prestige by invoking judicial title | Sharp used his title to pressure release. | He did not intend to benefit private interests. | Violated Canon 2B; willful conduct established. |
| Canon 2B—allowing relationship to influence conduct | Relationship with mother influenced actions. | No influence on judgment. | Violated Canon 2B; willful conduct established. |
| Canon 3B(4)—dignity and courtesy in official capacity | Statements were abusive to employees. | Anger was venting, not intended to threaten. | Violated Canon 3B(4); willful conduct established. |
| Canons 4A(1)/(2)—extrajudicial conduct | Conduct also affected extrajudicial duties. | Conduct could not be double-counted with judicial acts. | Not violated on Charges III/IV; no basis found for extrajudicial violation. |
| Article V, § 1-a(6)A—public discredit | Media coverage reflected badly on judiciary. | publication by others is not the judge’s fault. | Violated Article V, § 1-a(6)A; public discredit.</br>Discipline: Public reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2002) (willful violation requires intentional or grossly indifferent misuse of office)
- Barr v. State, 13 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 1998) (standard for willful violations; respect for judiciary)
- Deming, 108 Wash.2d 82, 736 P.2d 639 (Wash. 1987) (factors for sanctioning misconduct in judicial discipline)