Inquiry Concerning a Judge JQC Nos. 2022-189 & 2022-203 Re: Hon. Wayne Culver

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: SC2022-0846
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2022-0846 ____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE JQC NOS. 2022-189 & 2022-203 RE: HON. WAYNE CULVER.

November 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission has submitted

findings, conclusions, and recommended discipline after a full

hearing involving Seminole County Judge Wayne Culver. The

Commission found that Judge Culver violated several canons of the

Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in abusive and intemperate

conduct during two separate court proceedings. As discipline, the

Commission recommends a 60-day suspension without pay; a

public reprimand; and continued anger management and treatment

for stress. We accept the Commission’s findings and conclusions,

and we impose the recommended suspension and public

reprimand. Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. (“The supreme court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings,

conclusions, and recommendations of the commission . . . .”)

The Commission’s hearing panel considered three charges

alleging intemperate conduct in separate incidents that occurred on

January 25, February 9, and February 10, 2022, during Judge

Culver’s second year on the county bench. The panel found no

canon violations as to the January 25 incident. We accept that

conclusion and limit our discussion to the two February incidents.

On February 9, Samuel Perez appeared before Judge Culver at

a hearing to determine whether Perez had violated an injunction

requiring him to complete a “batterer’s intervention program.” The

Commission found that Perez “was polite and respectful at the

hearing, and apologetic for failing to complete the [program] earlier.”

Judge Culver “nevertheless found him in direct criminal contempt

based on failure to complete the [program], sentenced him to the

maximum 179 days in jail, and had Mr. Perez summarily taken into

custody.” Judge Culver cut off Perez when the latter asked to

address the court. A woman seated in the gallery stood up and

began to address the court, but within a few seconds Judge Culver

told her: “Ma’am, sit down or you’re going to go into custody as

-2- well.” The Fifth District Court of Appeal later concluded that Judge

Culver’s handling of the contempt proceeding violated the governing

rules of procedure, in part by failing to offer Perez a meaningful

opportunity to present mitigation testimony. Perez v. State, 334 So.

3d 742, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). After Perez had already spent

more than a month in jail, the district court granted an emergency

habeas petition for his release.

The day after the hearing in the Perez case, Kevin Newton was

scheduled to appear before Judge Culver. Newton entered the

courtroom while a different hearing was underway, and he could

not find a seat. According to the Commission, “Judge Culver

noticed him, and yelled in a loud, aggressive voice, ‘Sir, I’m doing

something here. Could you shut up and sit down.’ ” Newton

responded that he was trying to find a seat. To which Judge Culver

replied: “That’s not shutting up. You want to be held in contempt

and go to jail? I asked you a f*****g question, a*****e.” Newton

answered, “No, Sir,” and Judge Culver said, “Then shut up.” The

Commission tells us that, at his disciplinary hearing, “Judge Culver

admitted shocking himself by his use of profanity, and that

members of the public would rightly be appalled.”

-3- We conclude that the Commission’s factual findings, which

Judge Culver has not contested, are supported by clear and

convincing evidence. See In re Hobbs, 338 So. 3d 848, 853-54 (Fla.

2022) (Commission’s factual findings must be supported by clear

and convincing evidence). And we agree with the Commission’s

conclusion that Judge Culver violated Canons 1, 2, 3B(2), 3B(4),

and 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Those canons together

require judges to conduct themselves with integrity; to be patient,

dignified, and courteous toward others in official settings; and to be

faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law. It is

self-evident that Judge Culver’s profane outburst at Mr. Newton

violated the canons. As to the other February 2022 incident, while

the Commission was right to acknowledge that “[t]here is a fine line

between legal error (addressed by appellate courts) and violation of

the judicial canons (addressed in disciplinary proceedings),” we

agree that Judge Culver’s handling of Mr. Perez’s contempt hearing

crossed that line.

That leaves the issue of the appropriate discipline. Viewed in

the abstract, Judge Culver’s behavior toward Mr. Newton was so

unacceptable, and so potentially corrosive of public confidence in

-4- the judiciary, as to render Judge Culver a candidate for removal

from the bench. But here the Commission heard mitigating

evidence that it described as “overwhelming.”

The Commission heard evidence that Judge Culver’s

misconduct occurred over a brief period during which he

experienced “intense personal pressure and loss” while he cared for

his imminently dying father. The state attorney, a public defender,

and several judges (including two chief judges) testified on Judge

Culver’s behalf, each familiar with Culver’s conduct both as an

attorney and a judge (Culver was admitted to The Florida Bar in

2001 and became a judge in 2021). Though each witness

acknowledged that Judge Culver had committed misconduct here,

they said that they “had never seen him engage in this type of

behavior before or since.” The evidence further showed that Judge

Culver has voluntarily received mental health counseling for the

past two years, and that he has been remorseful and cooperative

throughout the disciplinary process. Judge Culver has no

disciplinary history as a lawyer or judge.

The combined weight of this evidence led the Commission to

conclude that, “[a]s recounted by his peers, the public still holds

-5- Judge Culver in high standing and esteem.” Based on the

testimony it heard, the Commission came to believe that Culver “is

genuinely contrite, has learned from this experience, and continues

to be effective as a judge.” The Commission deemed Judge Culver’s

misconduct “aberrational, situational and attributable to stressful

personal problems.” And the Commission was persuaded that

Judge Culver’s misconduct is unlikely to recur.

We do not see grounds to deviate from the Commission’s

recommendations that Judge Culver be suspended for 60 days

without pay and publicly reprimanded. We therefore accept those

recommendations and order (1) that Judge Culver’s 60-day

suspension without pay will be effective on a date within 30 days of

the issuance of this opinion and as determined by the chief judge of

the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit and (2) that Judge Culver must

appear before this Court for the administration of a public

reprimand at a time to be set by the Clerk of this Court. Although

we expect that Judge Culver will continue to seek necessary mental

health counseling, we do not order him to do so, because the

Florida Constitution lists the allowable disciplinary sanctions as

-6- “reprimand, fine, suspension with or without pay, or lawyer

discipline.” Art. V, § 12(a)(1), Fla. Const.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Gregory W. Coleman, Chair, Alexander J. Williams, General Counsel, and Hugh Brown, Assistant General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

Warren W. Lindsey of Lindsey, Ferry & Parker, P.A., Maitland, Florida,

for Judge Wayne Culver, Respondent

-7-