Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. James E. Wells
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-JP-00229-SCT
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
v.
JAMES E. WELLS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM WHICH
APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING
FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
01/22/2001
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III
PRO SE
CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND PAY ALL COSTS - 9/20/2001
10/11/2001
EN BANC.
BANKS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This matter is before the Court on a joint motion filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial
Performance and James E. Wells, Justice Court Judge, District One, Jefferson County, Mississippi for the
approval of disciplinary recommendations. Because the sanctions are supported by the facts of this inquiry,
the motion is granted.
I.
¶2. On August 30, 2000, the Commission filed a formal complaint charging Judge James E. Wells with
judicial misconduct constituting a violation of Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of
1890, as amended. Judge Wells filed an answer to the amended formal complaint on September 22, 2000.
In lieu of an evidentiary hearing, an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation was
submitted and filed by the Commission and Judge Wells. The findings of the Commission are as follows:
¶3. On April 20, 2000, Judge Wells, in his official capacity as justice court judge, was to preside over
criminal charges filed by Lakisha Shaw against Derrick Shelvy and over charges filed against Shaw by
Shelvy's mother. Without testimony to prove the charges and without giving Shaw an opportunity to defend
herself, Judge Wells found Shaw guilty of disturbing the peace and simple assault based upon the affidavits
alone.
¶4. By engaging in this conduct, the Commission found Wells, in his official capacity as justice court judge,
to be in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1) and 3A(4) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct. It
additionally found the conduct constituted willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice, bringing the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution
of 1890. The Commission recommends that Wells be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the
amount of $100.00.
II.
¶5. This Court conducts de novo review of judicial misconduct proceedings, giving great deference to the
findings and recommendations of the Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission. Mississippi Comm'n
on Judicial Performance v. Vess, 692 So. 2d 80, 83 (Miss. 1997). Article 6, Section 177A of the
Mississippi Constitution provides in relevant part that:
On recommendation of the commission on judicial performance, the supreme court may remove from
office, suspend, fine or publicly censure or reprimand any justice or judge of this state for:(b) willful
misconduct in office; . . or (e) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice brings the judicial
office into disrepute.
We, thus, have the sole power to impose sanctions when based on clear and convincing evidence,
Mississippi Comm'n Judicial Performance v. Fletcher, 686 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1996); In re
Garner, 466 So. 2d 884, 885 (Miss. 1985), and we have sanctioned conduct similar to that charged here
before. See Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So. 2d 180 (Miss. 1996)
(judge sanctioned for issuing temporary retraining order against pastor without any legal authority and
without any notice or opportunity to be heard given to pastor).
¶6. The Commission has charged Wells with willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice because, while presiding over a criminal matter, he found a defendant guilty of
disturbing the peace and simple assault based solely on the affidavits, without affording the defendant the
opportunity to defend herself. We have adopted the following definition for willful misconduct:
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.
In Re Anderson, 412 So.2d 743, 745 (Miss.1982) (quoting In Re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237
S.E.2d 246, 255 (1977)) (emphasis in original in italics); see also In Re Garner, 466 So.2d884,
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).
In re Quick, 553 So. 2d 522, 524-25 (Miss. 1989) (emphasis added in bold face). Under the definition,
the Commission concludes that Judge Wells's conduct amounted to "willful misconduct" in office and
"conduct prejudicial" to the administration of justice, bringing the "judicial office into disrepute." This Court
agrees.
¶7. Judge Wells's conduct violates Canons 1, 2A,2B, 3A(1) and 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of
Mississippi Judges. In failing to permit Shaw to defend herself in a criminal matter, his conduct amounts to
an "attack on the integrity and independence of the judicial office," in violation of Canon 1(1) of the Code.
Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So. 2d 180. By denying Shaw a right to
a defense, he undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary as prescribed in Canon 2(A) and
2(B).(2) In failing to accord Shaw a full right to be heard, his conduct was a clear violation of Canon 3(A)
(1)'s requirement that judges be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence and Canon 3(A)
4's(3) requirement that judges "accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, a full right
to be heard according to the law."
III.
¶8. To mitigate these findings, we note that Wells has served as a Justice Court Judge for District One of
Jefferson County, Mississippi, since 1996. This is the first complaint filed against him by the Commission,
and it does not believe, nor do we, that Judge Wells deliberately or intentionally violated the Canons of the
Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges nor Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890,
as amended. All agree that Judge Wells now understands that every litigant has a full right to be heard
according to the law and not on the sworn allegations of an affidavit alone.
¶9. In accordance with section 177A, providing that upon recommendation of the Commission, this Court
may remove, suspend, fine, publicly censure or publicly reprimand judges found to be in violation, the
Commission recommends that Judge Wells be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the amount of
$100.00. Judge Wells has agreed to this recommendation and has joined in the Commission's motion to
accept the recommended sanctions. We agree and find the sanction consistent with previous decisions. See
Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanders, 708 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1998) (public
reprimand and assessment of court costs warranted for circuit judge's abuse of court's contempt powers
against circuit clerk and for judge's unlawful expungement of felony convictions of two criminal defendants);
Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Fletcher, 686 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1996) (conduct
of judge, who incarcerated defendant without notice or hearing constituted willful misconduct in office and
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought judicial office into disrepute, and
warranted public reprimand and assessment of costs).
IV.
¶10. For the reasons stated, the findings and disciplinary recommendations of the Mississippi Commission
on Judicial Performance are approved and adopted, and the motion is granted.
¶11. JAMES E. WELLS, JUSTICE COURT JUDGE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, SHALL (1)
BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED IN OPEN COURT BY THE PRESIDING CIRCUIT JUDGE
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF THE
NEXT TERM OF THAT COURT AFTER THIS DECISION IS FINAL, AND (2) PAY THE
COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00.
PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE, P.J., SMITH, MILLS, WALLER, COBB, DIAZ AND EASLEY,
JJ., CONCUR.
1. CANON 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should
participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of
conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of
this Code should be construed and applied
to further that objective.
2. CANON 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All His
Activities
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge should not allow his family, social, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or
judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor
should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
3. (4) A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full
right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte
or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. A judge, however, may obtain the
advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before him if he gives notice to the
parties of the person consulted and the substance of the advice, and affords the parties reasonable
opportunity to respond.
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.
