Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Cardell Fletcher
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 96-CC-00393-SCT
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
v.
CARDELL FLETCHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH
APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR
APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING
FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/12/96
HON. JOHN C. LOVE JR.
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY III
ANDREW M.W. WESTERFIELD
CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
ORDERED - 12/19/96
1/9/97
EN BANC.
MILLS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This case was presented to the Court en banc via a Joint Motion for Approval of
Recommendations filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. Upon review of the
joint motion and brief filed in support thereof, this Court concurs with the joint resolution and affirms
the findings of fact and the agreed sanctions recommended to this Court, as follows:
I.
¶2. On April 22, 1996, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance (the Commission),
pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, filed with the
Mississippi Supreme Court its findings and recommendations that the Respondent, Cardell Fletcher,
Municipal Court Judge, City of Shelby, Mississippi, be publicly reprimanded and assessed the costs of
this proceeding.
Statement of the Case
¶3. The Commission, on October 20, 1995, filed a Formal Complaint charging the Respondent with
judicial misconduct constituting a violation of Section 177A, Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as
amended. On November 17, 1995, the Commission filed an Amended Formal Complaint. On
December 18, 1995, the Respondent filed an Answer to the Amended Formal Complaint.
¶4. An Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation was filed by counsel for the
Commission and counsel for the Respondent on March 26, 1996.
¶5. The Respondent is the duly-elected Justice Court Judge, Place 3, Bolivar County, Mississippi. In
addition, he has served as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Shelby, Mississippi.
¶6. The Respondent, in his official capacity as Municipal Court Judge, engaged in judicial misconduct
in two separate cases. In the first case, the Respondent found a defendant guilty of several charges
arising from a domestic disturbance, fined him, gave him probation and directed the defendant to stay
away from his [the defendant's] wife. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a mittimus for the defendant
for violation of a court order and had him arrested and sentenced him to jail for three months and
twenty-nine days without notice or hearing.
¶7. In the second case, the Respondent found a defendant guilty of driving under the influence (DUI),
first offense, no tag and no drivers license and sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twentynine days in jail, in excess of the statutory maximums. The Respondent also filed an affidavit against
this defendant for perjury, issued an arrest warrant himself, and subsequently found him guilty. The
Respondent has entered corrected judgments in this second case, and the perjury charge has been
expunged upon notice and hearing.
¶8. The Respondent has also now resigned as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Shelby,
Mississippi.
¶9. The Commission found that the Respondent's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(l), 3A(4),
3B(l) and 3C(l) (a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges.
¶10. The Commission recommended to the Mississippi Supreme Court that the Respondent be
publicly reprimanded. The Commission also recommended that costs be assessed to the Respondent.
II.
THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IN
OFFICE AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
WHICH BRINGS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE INTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 177A OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION.
¶11. The Respondent's conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute pursuant to Section 177A of
the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, as applied by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
¶12. The Respondent incarcerated a defendant without notice or hearing. He also sentenced a
defendant to more jail time than allowed by law and found the same defendant guilty of perjury based
upon his own affidavit and warrant. In addition, perjury is a felony and therefore beyond the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court.
¶13. As the Court held in In re Quick, 553 So. 2d 522, 524-525 (Miss. 1989):
Willful misconduct in office is the improper or wrongful use of power of his office by a judge
acting intentionally, or with gross unconcern for his conduct and generally in bad faith. It
involves more than an error of judgment or a mere lack of diligence. Necessarily, the term
would encompass conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, and also any
knowing misuse of the office, whatever the motive. However, these elements are not necessary
to finding of bad faith. A specific intent to use the powers of the judicial office to accomplish a
purpose which the judge knew or should have known was beyond the legitimate exercise of his
authority constitutes bad faith . . . .
Willful misconduct in office of necessity is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
that brings the judicial office into disrepute. However, a judge may also, through negligence or
ignorance not amounting to bad faith, behave in a manner so as to bring the judicial office into
disrepute.
In re Anderson, 412 So. 2d 743, 745 (Miss.1982) (quoting In re Nowell, 237 S.E.2d 246, 255)
(1977) (emphasis in original). See also In re Garner, 466 So. 2d 844, 885 (Miss. 1985); In re
Stewart, 490 So. 2d 882, 884 (Miss. 1986); In re Collins, 524 So. 2d 553 (Miss. 1987). Moreover,
this Court can generally recognize examples of such conduct when presented before the Court.
Anderson, 412 So. 2d at 752 (Hawkins, J., specially concurring).
¶14. Furthermore, Respondent's conduct is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which
brings the judicial office into disrepute. The Respondent violated Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges. As this Court stated in In re William Anderson 451 So. 2d
232, 234 (Miss. 1984):
While the conduct of Respondent, in our opinion, amounted to willful misconduct in office and
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing the judicial office into disrepute, we
recognize as quoted in In re Anderson, supra, that a judge may also, through negligence or
ignorance not amounting to bad faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of
justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. The result is the same regardless of
whether bad faith or negligence and ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions.
¶15. The Court in In re Quick, supra, at 527, relying upon essentially this same language, found that
misconduct does not have to be imbedded in any form of bad behavior. Negligence, ignorance and
incompetence are sufficient for a judge to behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. See also, In re Bailey, 541 So. 2d 1036 (Miss.
1989); In re Baker, 535 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 1988); In re Collins, 524 So. 2d 553 (Miss. 1987); In re
Stewart, 490 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 1986); In re Garner, 466 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 1985); and In re
[Lloyd] Anderson, 412 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 1982).
¶16. When the total course of conduct by the Respondent is considered, it is clear the Commission
findings are correct, and that his conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.
III.
THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 177A OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION.
¶17. Section 177A of the Mississippi constitution of 1890, as amended, provides that upon
recommendation of the Commission, a judge may be removed, suspended, fined, publicly censured or
publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court. The Commission has recommended that the
Respondent, Municipal Court Judge Cardell Fletcher, be publicly reprimanded and assessed the costs
of this proceeding.
¶18. In accordance with Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution and Rule 10 of the Rules of the
Commission, as interpreted by this Court, the Commission recommends disciplinary sanctions and the
Court, based upon a review of the entire record, determines the appropriate sanction. As the Court
stated in In re Quick, supra at 527:
In judicial misconduct proceedings, this Court is the trier of fact, and it has sole power to
impose sanctions. Garner, 466 So. 2d at 885; Collins, 524 So. 2d at 556. Although this Court
has an obligation to conduct an independent inquiry, it nonetheless gives great weight to the
finding of the Commission, which has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses. Garner, supra, at 885; Collins, supra at 556.
See also, Mississippi Judicial Performance Comm'n v. Walker, 565 So. 2d 1117 (Miss.1990).
¶19. As previously noted, the sanctions available to the Court include removal from office,
suspension, fine and public censure or reprimand. The Court stated in Mississippi Judicial
Performance Comm'n v. Walker, supra, "The sanction imposed should be consistent with other like
cases and 'ought to fit the offense.' In re Bailey, 541 So. 2d 1036, 1039 (Miss. 1989)."
¶20. The Commission has recommended a public reprimand and assessment of costs. The
Respondent has agreed to this recommendation and has joined in the Commission's motion to accept
the recommended sanctions. In addition, the Respondent has resigned his position as Municipal Judge
for Shelby, Mississippi, where the misconduct occurred. He continues to serve as a Bolivar County
Justice Court Judge.
¶21. The proposed sanction is consistent with the elements as to the imposition of sanctions as found
in In re Baker, 535 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 1988), and Mississippi Judicial Performance Comm'n v.
Walker, 565 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1990). The recommendation for a public reprimand is supported by
the facts of this inquiry and is hereby approved and adopted by this Court.
CONCLUSION
¶22. In conclusion, the Court finds that the conduct of the Respondent, Municipal Court Judge
Cardell Fletcher, constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Section 177A of the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended. This Court hereby grants the Joint Motion for
Approval of Recommendations filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and
orders that Judge Cardell Fletcher be publicly reprimanded pursuant to Section 177A of the
Mississippi Constitution and that he be taxed with the costs of this proceeding pursuant to Rule 36 of
the Mississippi Supreme Court Rules.
¶23. JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY THE
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE GRANTED. JUDGE
CARDELL FLETCHER TO BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED.
LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN, BANKS, ROBERTS AND
SMITH, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
