Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re Angel

867 So. 2d 379, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 87, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 228
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 19, 2004
DocketNo. SC03-833
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 867 So. 2d 379 (Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re Angel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re Angel, 867 So. 2d 379, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 87, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 228 (Fla. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) that Judge Carven D. Angel receive the sanction of public reprimand for his judicial misconduct. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. As explained in more detail below, the JQC’s recommendation is approved.

The instant action arose from charges filed against Judge Angel alleging that during his 2002 election campaign for the judgeship he now occupies he engaged in a pattern of improper conduct, namely that he engaged in prohibited partisan political activity. On May 23, 2003, the JQC filed a notice of formal proceedings against Judge Angel charging him with thirteen ethical violations. Judge Angel was charged with violating sections 105.071(1) and (3) of the Florida Statutes (2003),1 and violating Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically sections 7 A(l)(d), 7 A(3), and 7 C(3).2 The JQC’s notice of formal charges set forth in pertinent part the following:

[381]*3811. During the campaign, on or about June 29, 2002, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(l)(d) and 7C(3), you attended a “Grass Roots BBQ” sponsored by the Marion County Republican Party to which your opponent, was not invited, with your wife and daughter where you and they campaigned for your election.
2. During the campaign, on or about July 4, 2002, in violation of § 105.071(1) and Canon 7A.(l)(d) and 7C.(3), you attended and made a campaign speech at the Silver Springs Democratic Club gathering to which your opponent was not invited.
3. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(l)(d) you attended and participated in a regular meeting of the Ocala Republican Women.
4. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1) and Canon 7A.(l)(d), you attended and you and members of your family campaigned for your election at a “Salute to Labor Picnic and Democratic Candidate Rally.”
5. During the campaign, on or about August 15, 2002, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(l)(d), you attended and participated in a meeting of the Republican Club of Sumter County.
6. During the campaign on or about August 26, 2002, in violation of § 105.071, Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(l)(d), 7A.(3)(c) and 7C.(3), you attended and participated in the Lake County Federated Women Republican’s “Meet the Candidate Night” to which your opponent was not invited and knowingly permitted one of your daughters to make a campaign speech on your behalf at that event.
7. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(1)(D) and 7C.(3), you attended the “Dennis Baxley Family Picnic” which was a partisan political gathering to support Republican Dennis Baxley, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, to which your opponent was not invited and spoke asking for the votes of the. persons present.
8. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, Canon 7A.(l)(d), 7C.(3), and 7A.(3)(e), you knowingly authorized one of your daughters to attend and campaign on your behalf at a “Republican Grass Roots Meeting” in Brooksville, Florida.
9. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7A.(l)(d) and 7A.(3)('c), you knowingly permitted one of your daughters to attend, speak and campaign at a meeting of the Palm Bay Democratic in Marion County, Florida to which your opponent was not invited.
10. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, Canon 7A.(l)(d) and 7A.(3)(c), you knowingly permitted one of your daughters to attend and campaign on your behalf at the Oak Run Republican Club’s “Candidate Forum.”
11. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Florida Statutes, Canon 7A-(l)(d), 7C.(3) and 7A.(3)(c), you knowingly permitted one of your daughters to attend, campaign and speak on your behalf at a meéting of the Silver Springs Shore Democratic Club to which your opponent was not invited.
12. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(1), Canon 7A.(l)(d) and 7A.(3)(c), you attended a Marion County [382]*382Republican Party fornm in Ocala and were recognized as a judicial candidate.
13. During the campaign, in violation of § 105.071(3), Florida Statutes, and Canon 7C.(3), you publicly represented yourself and held yourself out as a member of a partisan political party.

On June 13, 2003, Judge Angel answered the formal charge. On August 22, 2003, the JQC and Judge Angel presented a stipulation to this Court pursuant to article V, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rule 6(j). In that stipulation, Judge Angel admitted seven of the thirteen original charges and the impropriety of that conduct, which occurred during the course of his 2002 election campaign.3 The JQC recommended a public reprimand of Judge Angel. As explained below, based on the stipulated facts, the JQC’s recommendation is approved.

This Court “gives the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight.” In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77, 85 (Fla.2003). However, “the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination rests with this Court.” Id. (quoting In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla.1994)). This Court “review[s] the findings to ensure that there is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to support the alleged ethical violations — a standard of proof which has been described as ‘more than a preponderance of the evidence, but the proof need not be beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Davey, 645 So.2d at 404).

A review of the stipulation entered into by Judge Angel and the JQC, as well as the JQC’s findings, demonstrates by clear [383]*383and convincing evidence that Judge Angel’s conduct relating to partisan political functions violated both the spirit and the letter of section 105.071 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Angel admitted the conduct alleged, and the impropriety of that conduct, in the stipulation presented by the parties. Judge Angel’s own admissions bolster the JQC’s findings, which we give great weight as we consider its recommendation of discipline in the instant action. See In re Rodriguez, 829 So.2d 857, 860 (Fla.2002); In re McMillan, 797 So.2d 560, 566 (Fla.2001).

In other cases, this Court has accepted the JQC’s recommendation of public reprimand for conduct in violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as section 105.071 of the Florida Statutes. See In re Alley, 699 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1997) (approving public reprimand for judicial election campaign violations); In re Glickstein, 620 So.2d 1000, 1002-03 (Fla. 1993) (approving public reprimand for violation of Canon 7); In re Turner, 573 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1990) (same); In re Kay, 508 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla.1987) (approving public reprimand for violation of Canon 7 as well as section 105.071, Florida Statutes); In re Pratt, 508 So.2d 8, 9-10 (Fla. 1987) (same).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jerkins v. Lincoln Electric Co.
103 So. 3d 1 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2011)
In Re Angel
867 So. 2d 379 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
867 So. 2d 379, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 87, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inquiry-concerning-a-judge-re-angel-fla-2004.