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 Court of Appeals Judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico, entered a guilty plea for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, first offense. This incident occurred on February 16, 2011, when the judge was found driving with an alcohol concentration greater than the legal limit. Following the incident, the judge notified the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and took leave without pay. Subsequently, a plea agreement was entered, and the judge was convicted (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Judicial Standards Commission: Argued for the judge's permanent retirement from judicial office, prohibition from holding any judicial office in the State of New Mexico in the future, and issuance of a formal reprimand (para 1).
• Respondent (Judge): Agreed to permanently retire from the bench, never again hold any judicial office in the State of New Mexico, and accept a formal reprimand from the Court (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the judge's conduct of driving under the influence constitutes willful misconduct in office, violating various Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and warranting discipline by the Court (para 5).

Disposition

• The judge agreed to permanently retire from judicial office, not to hold or seek any judicial office in New Mexico in the future, and accepted a formal reprimand issued by the Court (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Curiam: The Court accepted the stipulated facts and the consent to discipline filed by the Judicial Standards Commission concerning the judge's guilty plea to driving under the influence. The judge's actions were deemed to constitute willful misconduct in office, violating several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including those upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary, promoting public confidence in the judiciary, being faithful to the law, and minimizing conflicts with judicial obligations. The Court emphasized the importance of public confidence in the judiciary and the higher standard of personal behavior expected from judges. Despite the judge's otherwise impeccable job performance, the Court accepted his permanent retirement and issued a formal reprimand as discipline, aiming to reaffirm and restore public confidence in the judiciary and to preserve its integrity and independence (paras 1-9).