Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed a notice of formal charges against Judge John P. Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by sending an ex parte e-mail to the Broward Public Defenders Office, failing to seek a recusal or transfer when an appeal effectively froze his division, and making belittling remarks in open court about a pending matter. The JQC recommended that John Contini receive the sanction of a public reprimand plus a letter of apology, continued judicial mentoring, completion of a mental health program, and assessment of costs of these proceedings. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendations of discipline, holding that the sanctions and conditions imposed were fitting and appropriate. View "In re Judge John Patrick Contini" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed a notice of formal changes against Judge John P. Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for conduct in violation of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The JQC did not recommend suspension or removal for the misconduct but, rather, reasoned that a public reprimand plus conditions was appropriate. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendations of a public reprimand plus conditions, holding that, in light of Judge Contini’s actions, the relevant case law, and the mitigating factors, these sanctions and conditions were fitting and appropriate. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge John P. Contini" on Justia Law

The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) accused Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Gregory Holder of engaging in improper conduct while presiding over a criminal case in violation of five canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Holder entered into a factual stipulation with the JQC admitting the charges and accepting a public reprimand and six additional hours of Continuing Judicial Education (CJE) training hours on topics related to ethics. Based on the stipulation, the JQC concluded that Judge Holder violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(7) and 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court (1) approved the stipulation entered into by Judge Holder and the JQC, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the findings of fact as to all charges; and (2) approved the stipulated discipline of a public reprimand and completion of six additional CJE training hours. View "In re Inquiry Concerning Judge Gregory Holder" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) alleged that Seminole County Judge Jerri Collins violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct in the course of presiding over a domestic violence case. Judge Collins accepted full responsibility for her wrongful conduct. The JQC and Judge Collins entered into a revised consent judgment imposing as sanctions on Judge Collins a public reprimand before the Supreme Court, the successful completion of an anger management course, and attendance at the domestic violence course offered during Phase II of the Florida Judicial College. The Supreme Court approved the revised consent judgment, holding that the JQC’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the sanctions were appropriate. View "In re Inquiry Concerning Judge Jerri Collins" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found County Court Judge John C. Murphy of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Murphy’s misconduct included threatening to commit violence against an assistance public defender, engaging in physical altercation with council, and resuming his docket while defendants were without council. The JQC recommended that Judge Murphy be disciplined as follows: a public reprimand, a 120-suspension, a $50,000 fine, mental health therapy, and Judicial Education Courses. The Supreme Court rejected the JQC’s recommendation and instead removed Judge Murphy from office, concluding that, through his misconduct, Judge Murphy surrendered his privilege to serve in the state’s court system. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge John C. Murphy" on Justia Law

On February 19, 2015, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed in the Supreme Court a notice of formal charges charging Eleventh Judicial Circuit Judge Jacqueline Schwartz with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Schwartz admitted her misconduct and stipulated to the sanctions of a public reprimand and a letter of apology. On April 29, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the parties’ stipulation, concluding that the terms of the stipulation were inadequate to address the violations committed by Judge Schwartz. Judge Schwartz and the JQC subsequently filed a revised consent judgment in which the parties agreed to the terms outlined in the April 29, 2015 order. The Supreme Court approved the revised consent judgment, which imposed the following sanctions upon Judge Schwartz: a public reprimand before the Supreme Court, a thirty-day suspension without pay, a requirement that Judge Schwartz write a letter of apology, and a $10,000 fine. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Jacqueline Schwartz" on Justia Law

Defendant in this criminal case was represented by an attorney who also represented Defendant’s codefendant. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant’s “waiver of the right to conflict-free trial counsel was invalid.” The district court of appeal reversed Defendant’s conviction, concluding that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry when Defendant consented to his attorney representing both him and his codefendant and that the error was not harmless. The State appealed, arguing that a waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel is only required when there is an actual conflict of interest and that an attorney’s representation of two or more codefendants does not necessarily create an actual conflict of interest. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court of appeal and remanded the case with directions that Defendant’s conviction be affirmed, holding (1) some adverse or detrimental effect on the representation is required in order to establish an actual conflict of interest; and (2) because there was no finding of an actual conflict of interest in this case, there was no need for a waiver. View "State v. Alexis" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) determined that Laura Marie Watson, a judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, violated the Rules Regulating Professional Conduct and recommended that she be removed from office due to her actions while a practicing attorney and her demeanor during certain proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the JQC’s findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that removal was the appropriate sanction, holding that Watson’s conduct in the proceedings at issue was fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office. View "In re Laura Marie Watson" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommended that Jessica J. Recksiedler, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge, receive the sanction of a public reprimand for violating Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. The disciplinary action stemmed from the answers Judge Recksiedler gave to questions regarding her driving record. Judge Recksiedler did not contest the JQC’s finding that her conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, agreed to the recommended discipline, and entered into a stipulation. The Supreme Court approved the stipulation as well as the JQC’s findings of fact as to all four violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court then approved the recommended discipline of a public reprimand. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Recksiedler" on Justia Law

This action arose from an in appropriate relationship between Judge Susan B. Flood, Polk County Judge, and her bailiff. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found that Judge Flood’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended the sanction of a public reprimand. The Supreme Court held that there was clear and convincing evidence in support of the JQC’s findings of fact as to both violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and commanded Judge Flood to appear before the Court for the administration of a public reprimand. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Susan B. Flood" on Justia Law