AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 criminal complaint was filed by Mr. Julian Cisneros on March 2, 2011, against Mr. Thomas Chavez, alleging vandalism of his vehicle with damages amounting to $2,700. The Respondent, a municipal court judge in Questa, New Mexico, issued an order to show cause and held an ex parte hearing with the Defendant, without the presence of Mr. Cisneros or the Village. Subsequently, the Respondent engaged in ex parte communication with Mr. Cisneros regarding the temporary restraining order without notifying the Defendant. The Respondent also backdated a "Temporary Restraining Order" document, despite knowing he lacked jurisdiction to issue it (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the Respondent's conduct of improper ex parte proceedings and issuance of a temporary restraining order without jurisdiction violated several rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted willful misconduct in office (para 1).
• Respondent: Admitted to the facts of the case, including the improper ex parte proceedings and issuance of the temporary restraining order without jurisdiction, and conceded that his conduct constituted willful misconduct in office (paras 2-4, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent's conduct of engaging in ex parte communications and issuing a temporary restraining order without jurisdiction constituted willful misconduct in office and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court ordered that the Respondent complete a twelve-month supervised probation and formal mentorship, attend two special seminars at the National Judicial College, and receive a public censure (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justices Richard C. Bosson, Edward L. Chávez, Charles W. Daniels, and Paul J. Kennedy, unanimously agreed that the Respondent's actions constituted willful misconduct in office and violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court highlighted the ethical dilemmas faced by judges in small communities but emphasized the importance of abiding by the Code of Judicial Conduct regardless of community size. The Court found that the Respondent's ex parte communications and issuance of a temporary restraining order without jurisdiction not only violated specific rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct but also undermined the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. The Court concluded that the stipulated disciplinary measures were appropriate to deter the Respondent from repeating such conduct and to reaffirm and restore public confidence in the judiciary (paras 5-18).