INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 98-222, RE ROBERT E. BROWN

Fla. | 1999-09-16
Nos. 94,537
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
748 So. 2d 960 Florida Supreme Court (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court approved a stipulation between the Judicial Qualifications Commission and County Judge Robert E. Brown, finding judicial misconduct and imposing a public reprimand. The misconduct involved Judge Brown's handling of cases involving his former daughter-in-law despite recusal, including inadvertently signing an order while recused and executing arrest warrants as a matter of convenience.


Holding

Judge Brown committed judicial misconduct violating Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(E) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court approved a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline, finding that while the conduct was not intentionally abusive or motivated by improper motive, it impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.


Headnotes

[1] A judge's inadvertent signing of an order without noticing the identity of the defendant, due to an oversight and failure to give proper attention to the document, consti…

[2] A judge's execution of arrest warrants for convenience to the sheriff's office, despite having previously recused himself from a related case, constitutes judicial miscon…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Judge Brown inadvertently signed the Order to Show Cause without noticing the identity of the defendant.”

Establishes that Judge Brown's first misconduct was based on inattention rather than intentional impropriety

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Judge Brown recused himself from a criminal case (Case No. 97-624MM) against Angela Michelle Brown, his former daughter-in-law, involving harassing co…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a stipulation between the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission and Robert E. Brown, a judge of the County Court of Holmes County, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, wherein Judge Brown admits to judicial misconduct, the Commission recommends that he be publicly reprimanded for such conduct, and Judge Brown stipulates that he will not contest this recommendation, which will direct him to take all necessary steps to avoid repetition of this conduct in the future. We have jurisdiction. See art. Y, § 12, Fla. Const. We approve the stipulation and. impose the recommended sanction.

In its entirety, the stipulation states:

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (“the Commission”) through its Special Counsel, and the respondent, Judge Robert E. Brown (“Judge Brown”) stipulate as follows:
1. The parties waive further proceedings before the Hearing Panel of the Commission. Specifically, Judge Brown waives his right to an evidentiary hearing before the Hearing Panel, or the right to file additional pleadings. Judge Brown agrees that the Hearing Panel may make findings and a recommendation in accordance with this stipulation.

2. The parties agree that this stipulation and the findings and discipline recommendation of the Hearing Panel may be filed with the Supreme Court of Florida, and, unless ordered by the Court, waive the filing of briefs and the presentation of oral argument.

3. The parties after full investigation agree that the following facts are established by clear and convincing evidence:

(a)Case Number 97-624MM, pending in the County Court of Holmes County, styled “State of Florida v. Angela Michelle Brown” (“Ms.Brown”), involved a criminal misdemeanor charge against Ms. Brown of harassing communications in violation of Section 365.16, Florida Statutes. Ms. Brown was the former daughter-in-law of Judge Brown, and her arrest and the resulting charges were based upon an affidavit submitted by Robert E. Brown, Jr. (“Mr.Brown”), son of Judge Brown, on October 18, 1997. (The case is hereafter called “case number one.”) Judge Brown re-cused himself from any'further consideration of this case on December 4, 1997.

(b) Notwithstanding the recusal, Judge Brown issued an order on June 2, 1998, in case number one directed to Ms. Brown to appear before Judge Brown on July 1, 1998, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for alleged failure to abide by the terms of a non-prosecution agreement entered into by Ms. Brown and the State Attorney for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. The affidavit of non-compliance with pretrial intervention ' was delivered to Judge Brown’s secretary by Probation Officer Theresa Foxworth. It was included in a stack of many papers dealing with numerous other cases. ' Judge Brown’s secretary then sorted through the papers delivered by Theresa Fox-worth, and prepared the Order to Show Cause. Neither Ms. Foxworth nor the Judge’s secretary paid any attention to the name of the defendant on the order, or that Judge Brown had recused himself in this case. The secretary then placed a stack of papers, including'the Order to Show causé, on his desk for Judge Brown to review and sign. Judge Brown inadvertently signed the Order to Show Cause without noticing the identity of the defendant. Ms. Brown never appeared before him in this case.

(c) Judge Brown’s issuance of the order in Case Number 1 was due to an oversight in that he failed to read the name of the order placed before him. He did not give proper attention to this document prior to affixing his signature.

(d) On June 6, 1998, a second affidavit was executed by Mr. Brown, again charging Ms. Brown with harassing communications in violation of Section 365.16, and stalking in violation of Section 784.048(2), Florida Statutes. These alleged offenses were factually similar to those involved in case number one. Notwithstanding the previous recusal by Judge Brown in case number one, on June 8, 1998, he executed two warrants or orders for the arrest of Ms. Brown. Based upon this action on his part, Ms. Brown was arrested and transported out of the county to a female confinement facility in Jackson County, where she was required to spend the night.

(e) Judge Brown recognized the identity of Ms. Brown as the subject of the warrants described in subparagraph 3(d), which had been approved by an Assistant State Attorney, and for which probable cause existed. The signing was done as a convenience to the office of the Sheriff because the deputy presenting the warrants for signature would have been forced to travel to Washington County to have the warrants signed by the county judge there. Judge Brown is the only county judge in Holmes County. Judge Brown agrees that his execution of the warrants represented exercise of poor judgment, and that he should have refused to sign the warrants.

(f) Following this arrest, criminal misdemeanor charges were filed against Ms. Brown, being docketed as case number 98-382MM (“case number two”) and Judge Brown recused himself from further consideration of any portion of this case by an order dated June 8, 1998 and filed June 23, 1998. Ms. Brown never appeared before Judge Brown in this case.

(g) The direct evidence indicates that Judge Brown’s actions in Case Number 1 and Case Number 2 were not intentional abuses of power, and that Judge Brown did not have an improper motive behind his actions in either case.

(h) Judge Brown agrees that his actions in Case Number 1 and Case Number 2 would tend to impair the confidence of the citizens in the integrity of the judicial system, creating a situation for which Judge Brown accepts responsibility and deeply regrets, and acknowledges violations of Canons 1, 2(A) and 3(E), of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

4. Judge Brown has otherwise rendered commendable service to the public during the past twenty years as a conscientious judicial officer. Judge Brown has no record of any prior disciplinary action before the Commission. He is not a member of The Florida Bar. Judge Brown has provided full and free disclosure at all stages of these proceedings. Judge Brown has demonstrated remorse for his actions, and has suffered considerable embarrassment as a result. Judge Brown has demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward these proceedings.

5. The parties agree that appropriate discipline for the described conduct will be a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of Florida, and Judge Brown will not contest a recommendation by the Hearing Panel for such a public reprimand, which will direct him to take all necessary steps to avoid repetition of this conduct in the future.

6. Each party agrees to bear his and its respective costs.

In consideration of the foregoing stipulation, which is self-explanatory, and upon our independent review of the stipulated circumstances that gave rise to the findings of judicial misconduct, we hereby reprimand Judge Robert E. Brown for the improper judicial conduct set out in the stipulation.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Inquiry Concerning a Judge re Robert F. Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2005)
    …); see also In re Andrews, 875 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla.2004) (stating that the JQC’s findings, which were based on a stipulation, “show that the statements made by Judge Andrews evidenced a bias” against a litigant in the case before him); In re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960, 962 (Fla.1999) (“In consideration of the foregoing stipulation, which is self-explanatory, and upon our independent review of the stipulated circumstances that gave rise to the findings of judicial misconduct, we hereby reprimand Judge Robert E. Br…
  • Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 916 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2005)
    …(Fla.2000) (finding public reprimand appropriate discipline where judge used prestige of office and made inappropriate comments to police which were designed to obtain favored treatment for judge after he was brought to police station); In re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960, 961-62 (Fla.1999) (approving public reprimand for a judge who issued warrants for the arrest of his former daughter-in-law based on her harassing communications to and stalking of the judge’s son); In re Fogan, 646 So. 2d 191, 193-94 (Fla.1994) (co…
  • Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 51 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 2010)
    …tion as a mitigating factor. See, e.g., In re Luzzo, 756 So. 2d 76, 77-78 (Fla.2000) (approving public reprimand where judge was candid, remorseful, and cooperative after improperly accepting baseball tickets from practicing attorneys); In re Brown, 748 So. 2d 960, 961-62 (Fla.1999) (approving public reprimand for judge’s issuance of orders and warrants in cases from which he should have been recused where judge displayed remorse and cooperated with the JQC). Finally, the JQC’s recommendation of a modest fín…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw