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

• Between January and February 2010, the respondent, a judge, engaged in solicitation of funds for a golf tournament benefiting high school baseball programs, using the prestige of his judicial office. In February 2011, despite not being the on-call judge and having been at the same golf tournament where alcohol was consumed, the respondent made a judicial ruling to release a defendant, a juvenile probation officer arrested for DUI, on his own recognizance. The defendant's family attempted to influence the respondent by contacting his wife.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent: Admitted to the conduct that violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including engaging in prohibited fundraising activities, making a judicial ruling in a case where he was a potential witness, and taking judicial action after his family was contacted by the defendant's family.

Legal Issues

• Whether the respondent's conduct of soliciting funds using the prestige of his judicial office, making a judicial ruling where he was a potential witness, and taking judicial action after being contacted by the defendant's family violated the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Disposition

• The respondent shall receive a public censure.
• The respondent agrees to participate in a twelve-month supervised probation and formal mentorship.
• The respondent agrees to abide by all terms of the Stipulation Agreement and Consent to Discipline.
• The respondent and the Judicial Standards Commission shall bear their own costs and expenses in this matter.

Reasons

• Per Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels, Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Richard C. Bosson, and Justice Edward L. Chavez: The respondent's admitted conduct of soliciting funds, making a judicial ruling in a case where he was a potential witness, and taking judicial action influenced by contact from the defendant's family constitutes willful misconduct in office. This conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, providing sufficient basis for discipline under Article VI, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution. The disciplinary measures, including public censure and supervised probation with mentorship, aim to address and rectify the respondent's misconduct.