Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Ken Warren
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-JP-00255-SCT
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
v.
KEN WARREN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM
WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR
APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR
APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE
CASE:
DISPOSITION:
01/22/2001
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III
MARC STEPHEN ROY
MARK C. BAKER, SR.
CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
RANKIN COUNTY JUSTICE COURT JUDGE KEN WARREN IS
HEREBY PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED, IS FINED $765.00, AND SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00 - 07/19/2001
MOTION FOR
REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED: 8/9/2001
EN BANC.
EASLEY, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On April 13, 2000, the Mississippi Commission of Judicial Performance ("Commission") filed a formal
complaint against Ken Warren, Justice Court Judge, District Four, Rankin County, Mississippi, alleging
judicial misconduct in violation of Section 177A Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended. Judge
Warren filed an answer to the formal complaint on April 24, 2000. Counsel for the Commission and Judge
Warren entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation which was filed on
January 12, 2001. The Commission unanimously accepted and adopted the Agreed Statement of Facts and
Proposed Recommendation on January 12, 2001, and signed the documents on January 22, 2001. The
Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation was in lieu of an evidentiary hearing on the
facts.
¶2. The Commission's Finding of Facts and Recommendation was filed with this Court on February 12,
2001. Specifically, the Commission found that Judge Warren's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1),
3A(4) and 3C(1)of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges. The Commission found that Judge
Warren's behavior constituted 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. On March 16, 2001, the Commission recommended to the Court that
Judge Warren be publically reprimanded, fined $765.00 and assessed the costs of this proceeding in the
amount of $100.00. A joint motion for approval of recommendations filed by the Mississippi Commission
on Judicial Performance, was filed with this Court. This Court finds that the Commission's recommendation
of public reprimand and payment of the assessed fine of $765.00 and the assessed cost of the proceeding
in the amount of $100.00, shall be adopted.
FACTS
¶3. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Recommendation adopted by the Commission and
submitted to this Court, on December 25, 1998, Jason D. Thompson ("Thompson") was charged with DUI
by the Mississippi Highway Patrol. Judge Warren was contacted, in his official capacity as justice court
judge, by Thompson's mother-in-law about the DUI charge. Thompson went to the Rankin County Justice
Court Office on or about January 5, 1999, and met with Judge Warren. At some point between January 5,
1999, and January 25, 1999, the Trooper was called into Judge Brown's office. Judge Warren advised
Judge Brown and the Trooper about Thompson's coming to see him on an ex parte basis. On February 25,
2000, the case came to trial before Judge Brown. Judge Brown found Thompson guilty of DUI.
¶4. During the period of time beginning approximately January 5, 1999, and continuing at least through
September 28, 1999, Judge Warren, in his official capacity as justice court judge, engaged in the practice
of improperly remanding traffic and other tickets to the file based upon his ex parte communications with the
defendant or other person or persons indicated without notice to the officer or without a hearing or trial
being held. During the time in question, approximately ten cases were remanded in this manner. All ten of
these cases involved speeding. There are no allegations that he profited financially, in any way, from the
action of which he is charged.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5. The standard of review for judicial misconduct proceedings is de novo. Mississippi Comm'n on
Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872, 874 (Miss. 2000) (citing Mississippi Comm'n on
Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387, 389 (Miss. 1993)). The Commission's findings, based
on clear and convincing evidence, are given "great deference." Id. This Court however, is obligated to
conduct an independent inquiry. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Neal, 774 So.2d
414, 416 (Miss. 2000). Even though the Commission's findings are considered, this Court is not bound by
the findings and additional sanctions may be imposed. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v.
Whitten, 687 So.2d 744, 746 (Miss. 1997).
DISCUSSION
I. WHETHER JUDGE WARREN'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES WILLFUL
MISCONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WHICH
BRINGS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE INTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO SECTION 177A
OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION?
¶6. In judicial performance proceedings, this Court determines whether the conduct of the Judge constitutes
willful misconduct 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.
¶7. This Court has held:
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 a 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 prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to
bring the judicial office into disrepute.
Whitten, 687 So.2d at 747 (quoting In re Quick, 553 So.2d 522, 524 (Miss.1989)) (emphasis in
original).
¶8. The Commission determined by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Warren violated Canons 1,
2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(4) and 3C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges. In the case sub
judice, Judge Warren had ex parte communications and dismissed approximately ten speeding tickets
without notice to the office or hearing. "Whether this behavior was actually willful is of no consequence." As
this Court has held:
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.
Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss. 2000) (quoting In re
Anderson, 451 So.2d 232, 234 (Miss.1984)).
¶9. This Court finds that Judge Warren's conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. Accordingly, the
Commission's findings are correct, as to the willfulness of the conduct before this Court, and are upheld and
adopted.
II. WHETHER JUDGE WARREN SHOULD BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED AND
FINED $765.00 AND ALL COSTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION?
¶10. The Commission recommends that Judge Warren be publicly reprimanded, fined $765.00, and
assessed all costs associated with this proceeding in the amount of $100.00. The Commission and Judge
Warren have signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation which was unanimously
accepted and adopted by the Commission.
¶11. Imposing sanctions is left solely to the discretion of this Court. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial
Performance v. Jones, 735 So.2d 385, 389 (Miss. 1999). The sanction, however, ought to fit the offense
at issue. Boykin, 763 So.2d at 876. There is precedent for a public reprimand and fines in Mississippi for
similar occurrences of ex parte communications and dismissing speeding tickets without conducting any
hearing or notifying the officers who issued the citations. See, e.g., Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial
Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss. 2000); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial
Performance v. Bowen, 662 So.2d 551 (Miss. 1995); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance
v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387 (Miss. 1993).
¶12. In determining the appropriate sanction for each case before this Court mitigating factors are reviewed
pursuant to this Court's holding in In re Baker, 535 So.2d 47 (Miss. 1988). In determining whether a
reprimand should be public, this Court considers mitigating factors which weigh in favor of confidential,
private action. Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Walker, 565 So.2d 1117, 1125
(Miss. 1990). The factors from In re Baker, Walker, 565 So.2d at 1125 (citing In re Baker, 535 So.2d
at 54) along with the evidence from the case sub judice, are:
(1) The length and character of the judge's public service.
The record contains no information on this factor.
(2) Positive contributions made by the judge to the courts and the community.
The record contains no information on this factor.
(3) The lack of prior judicial precedent on the incident in issue.
There is previous precedent as cited above in Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v.
Boykin, 763 So.2d 872 (Miss. 2000); Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bowen,
662 So.2d 551 (Miss. 1995); and Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614
So.2d 387 (Miss. 1993).
(4) Commitment to fairness and innovative procedural form on the part of the judge.
The record contains no information on this factor.
(5) The magnitude of the offense.
Ex parte communications and dismissing speeding tickets without conducing any hearing or notifying
the officers who issued the citations such as the case herein, are prohibited.
(6) The number of persons affected.
Approximately ten defendants and court personnel were affected by these actions.
(7) Whether "moral turpitude" was involved.
Moral turpitude was not involved in the case before this Court. In addition, there was no allegation
that Judge Warren profited financially from the conduct with which he was charged by the
Commission.
CONCLUSION
¶13. In conclusion, this Court finds that the conduct of Rankin County Justice Court Judge Ken Warren
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. The proposed sanctions and fines are in line with past cases of the same or similar nature. In
addition, the fine is specifically tied to the misconduct. This Court orders a public reprimand and fine of
$765.00 with assessed court costs of $100.00. This reprimand should be read in open court at the next
term of the Circuit Court of Rankin County with Judge Warren present.
¶14. RANKIN COUNTY JUSTICE COURT JUDGE KEN WARREN IS HEREBY PUBLICLY
REPRIMANDED, FINED $765.00, AND SHALL PAY ALL COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$100.00.
PITTMAN, C.J., BANKS AND McRAE, P.JJ., MILLS, WALLER, COBB AND DIAZ, JJ.,
CONCUR. SMITH, 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.
