Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Carver, 107 So. 3d 964

Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint alleging ex parte communication with Roche, failure to disclose to the prosecutor, dismissal of Roche’s charges without a hearing or motion, and falsified court records stating officers were absent.
A three‑member committee recommended 30 days suspension, public reprimand, and costs; the Commission adopted the committee’s findings.
Court conducted an independent inquiry and ordered public reprimand and costs of $2,022.75.
Roche was ticketed for five oyster-harvesting violations; Klein accompanied Roche to Judge Carver’s home to determine the court’s location and possible proceedings.
On May 10, 2011, Roche’s trial date, officers Gex and Grimsley were present; dispute arose over attendance and whether dismissal occurred because officers were absent.
The majority found multiple Canon violations and willful misconduct; the dissent would require clear and convincing evidence and would not sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carver’s ex parte contact violated Canons	Carver violated Canons 1, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(7), 3B(8) and committed willful misconduct.	Mistake of law or discretionary decision not sanctionable; did not discuss merits with Roche.	Yes; violated Canons and constituted willful misconduct.
Whether dismissal of Roche’s tickets without prosecutor presence was misconduct	Dismissals occurred without proper hearing or prosecutor presence, constituting ticket-fixing.	Dismissal was a permissible correction where prosecutor/officers were absent; not sanctionable as mere law error.	Yes; constitutes misconduct and ticket-fixing.
Whether falsifying court records about officer absence occurred	Court file falsely stated officers were absent when they were present.	Records were part of routine practices; not clearly falsified or malicious.	Yes; falsification occurred.
What standard of proof applies to judicial misconduct findings	Clear and convincing evidence supports findings.	Standard should be strict; challenge to sufficiency of evidence.	Clear and convincing evidence applies; substantial findings.
What sanctions are appropriate	Thirty-day suspension without pay, public reprimand, and costs.	Sanctions should be milder given circumstances; no suspension.	Public reprimand and costs; no suspension.

Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (sanctioned for arresting-officer no-show; emphasizes corrective suspension)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Gordon, 955 So.2d 300 (Miss. 2007) (ticket-fixing and advising defendants not to appear; sanctions imposed)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Bradford, 18 So.3d 251 (Miss. 2009) (extensive improper dismissals; public reprimand and costs)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. McKenzie, 63 So.3d 1219 (Miss. 2011) (multiple misconducts; significant sanctions due to pattern)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So.3d 172 (Miss. 2011) (standard of review and need for careful inquiry into findings)