disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Goldie, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.
119 Ohio St.3d 428, 2008-Ohio-4606. Decided 9/18/2008.
Case Summaries- 102
Respondent, a Xenia Municipal Court judge at the time of the offenses, violated the due process rights of
three people appearing before her. Respondent stepped down from the bench in December 2007, after already
receiving a public reprimanded in 2005 for attempting to preside in a case after she had been removed
from the case by judicial order. Ohio State Bar Ass’n. v. Goldie, 107 Ohio St.3d 201, 2005-Ohio- 6186, 837
N.E. 2d 782. The parties entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement and stipulated to the misconduct,
three separate violations of Canon 3(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In the Walker Case, after
respondent properly sentenced Walker for his convictions for failing to properly confine or control dogs,
respondent presided over a series of animal-control proceedings against Walker concerning bears and their
escape from Walker‘s custody. On three separate occasions, respondent ordered Walker to remove the bears
or pay restitution without giving him notice or the opportunity to present a defense: first in February 2004 she
summarily ordered him to remove the bears from his property, then in March 2004, after the bears were taken
into county custody, she ordered him to pay for the county‘s expenses of transporting and caring for the bears,
and then in February 2005 she ordered him to pay $32, 127 in restitution to the county for the bears‘ upkeep,
failure to pay by the end of the month would result in the forfeiture and relocation of the bears. The Greene
County Court of Appeals reversed respondent‘s order, in part because she had no authority to order restitution
as Walker had not be convicted of any crimes relating to the bears and criticized her failure to afford Walker
even the pretense of due process. In the Webb case, respondent held a contempt hearing for Howard Webb,
who was arrested and charged with contempt of court for failing to pay fines and court costs related to nine
criminal and traffic cases pursuant to previous court agreements. Respondent sentenced Webb to 30 days in
jail per contempt to be served consecutively, totaling 270 days of jail time, but voluntarily dismissed the
sentences without a hearing to determine Webb‘s ability to pay. The Second District Court of Appeals ruled
that respondent failed to follow the law by not separating in the court order the amount of fines from the
amount of court costs. Respondent admitted she ―knowingly failed to follow the law‖ and that she did not
follow the prescribed procedures to determine Webb‘s ability to pay assessed fines before sending him to jail.
In the Brandon case, respondent sentenced Brandon to 90 days, suspended, jail time; five years probation;
and 500 hours of community service to be performed at Yellow Spring high School, after he was convicted of
vehicular manslaughter, a second degree misdemeanor with a statutory 200-hour community service
maximum. When Brandon decided to go to college in Athens, Ohio, respondent denied his request to
complete his community service there. The Greene County Court of Appeals found respondent abused her
discretion because she offered no explanation for the denial and ordered her to reduce the community
service hours to 200. At another hearing, respondent sentenced Brandon to an unconditional 30 days in jail
because he had failed to pay his $1,000 fine, was not attending college as he had claimed, and was living
out of state with his mother. Respondent did not advise Brandon, who appeared without counsel, of his right
to counsel. On appeal, the Greene County Court of Appeals again reversed, finding a denial of due process.
In each case, the board found a violation of Canon 3(B)(2) of the Judicial Code of Conduct, a judge shall be
faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. The Supreme Court agreed. In aggravation,
respondent does already have one public reprimand for her previous judicial failings. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(1)(a). However, she did not act dishonestly or out of self-interest, readily conceded her wrongdoing,
and submitted many letters recommending her character and reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b) and
(e). With these mitigating factors and her departure from the bench, the board recommended a public
reprimand per the consent-to-discipline agreement. The Supreme Court agreed and so ordered. One justice
dissented and would have rejected the consent to discipline agreement and remanded to board for new
proceedings including a consideration of an increased sanction.
Rules Violated: Code of Judicial Conduct (former) Canon 3(B)(2)
Aggravation: (a)
Mitigation: (b), (e)
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: YES Sanction: Public Reprimand