Inquiry Concerning A Judge No. 18-108 Re: Deborah White-Labora , 257 So. 3d 367 ( 2018 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC18-950
____________
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 18-108 RE: DEBORAH WHITE-
LABORA.
November 15, 2018
PER CURIAM.
In this case, we review the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) concerning Judge Deborah White-
Labora, a judge of the Miami-Dade County Court, and the stipulation entered into
between Judge White-Labora and the JQC. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12,
Fla. Const. As explained below, we approve the parties’ stipulation to the
allegation that Judge White-Labora improperly provided a character reference
letter, on her official court stationery, on behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting
sentencing in federal court, as well as the JQC’s finding that this misconduct
violated two canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We also approve the
stipulated discipline of a public reprimand.
FACTS
In its Notice of Formal Charges, the JQC accused Judge White-Labora of
engaging in improper conduct in violation of two canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, in pertinent part as follows:
1. In January of 2018, you wrote a character reference letter on
behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting sentencing in federal
court. . . . This letter was written on your judicial letter head, and
signed “Deborah White-Labora, County Court Judge.” . . .
2. Such character reference letters are prohibited by the Canons
and have resulted in published disciplinary cases. . . .
3. Your public support for this defendant was noted in an
article published by the Miami-Herald.
Your actions constitute inappropriate conduct that violate
Canons 1 and 2 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.
Following an investigative hearing, Judge White-Labora entered into a
factual stipulation with the JQC admitting the charges, apologizing for her
improper conduct, and accepting the public reprimand as recommended by the
JQC investigative panel. Based on the stipulation, the panel concluded that Judge
White-Labora violated Canons 11 and 2 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
1. Canon 1 states: “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable
to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining,
and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those
standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be
preserved.”
2. Canon 2 states, in pertinent part:
-2-
Thereafter, the JQC panel made its findings and recommendations of discipline, in
which it stated in pertinent part:
The Investigative Panel of the Commission has now entered
into a Stipulation with Judge White-Labora in which Judge White-
Labora admits that her conduct, in writing and sending a letter of
reference to a sentencing judge, on behalf of a criminal defendant
awaiting sentencing in federal court[,] was inappropriate. This
conduct violated Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as
set forth in the Stipulation and Notice of Formal Charges submitted
herewith.
Judge White-Labora has admitted the foregoing, accepts full
responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have
occurred. She has cooperated fully with the JQC.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that
while the judge did not intend to violate the Canons, she did not take
appropriate steps to inform herself about the propriety of sending such
a letter. Additionally, the Commission is mindful of the fact that her
action in writing the letter, while inappropriate, was not motivated by
selfish interests or motives. The JQC also notes Judge White-
Labora’s lengthy and heretofore unblemished service as a judicial
officer.
Finally, the Commission believes that it is useful to note how
such misconduct has been treated in the past [namely through the
sanction of a public reprimand]. . . .
Accordingly, the Commission therefore finds and recommends
that in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical
A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act
at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A
judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the
private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as
a character witness.
-3-
administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge
White-Labora.
JQC’S FINDINGS
This Court may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part” the findings
and conclusions of the JQC. Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. “This Court reviews
the findings of the JQC to determine whether the alleged violations are supported
by clear and convincing evidence, and reviews the recommended discipline to
determine whether it should be approved.” In re Holder, 195 So. 3d 1133, 1137
(Fla. 2016) (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2014)). “Although
this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight, the
ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination to discipline a judge
rests with this Court.” Id. (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098).
Judge White-Labora has admitted to the factual allegations regarding her
actions and does not dispute the JQC’s findings. We have held that “where a judge
admits to wrongdoing and the JQC’s findings are undisputed, this Court will
ordinarily conclude that the JQC’s findings are supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id. (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098). We do so in this case.
We further conclude that Judge White-Labora violated Canons 1 and 2 by
writing and submitting a character reference letter, on her official court stationery,
on behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting sentencing in federal court. By
engaging in such conduct, Judge White-Labora failed to maintain the high
-4-
standards of conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, violating
Canon 1, and she acted in a manner that could potentially undermine public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, violating Canon 2A.
Further, in violation of Canon 2B, Judge White-Labora created the appearance of
impropriety and partiality by improperly lending the prestige of her office to
advance the private interests of the defendant for whom she improperly acted as a
character witness.
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE
This Court is empowered to accept, modify, or reject the JQC’s
recommendations and “order that the . . . judge be subjected to appropriate
discipline.” Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. In reaching an agreement with Judge
White-Labora on the recommended sanction, the JQC Investigative Panel noted
that Judge White-Labora fully cooperated with the JQC, admitted her misconduct,
accepted full responsibility for it, and acknowledged that it should not have
occurred. The JQC also recognized that, although Judge White-Labora did not
take the appropriate steps to inform herself of the propriety of sending the letter,
she did not send the letter to promote selfish interests, and she has a lengthy and
otherwise previously unblemished history of judicial service.
Although we recognize that Judge White-Labora’s conduct was well-
intentioned, as Judge White-Labora understands by her agreement to the violations
-5-
and discipline, her conduct is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct. “[T]he
object of disciplinary proceedings is not for the purpose of inflicting punishment,
but rather to gauge a judge’s fitness to serve as an impartial judicial officer.” In re
McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560, 571 (Fla. 2001). Under our precedent, Judge White-
Labora’s conduct warrants a public reprimand. See In re Ward, 654 So. 2d 549
(Fla. 1995) (public reprimand appropriate sanction for judge who provided
character reference letter on official court stationery on behalf of defendant
awaiting sentencing in federal court); In re Abel, 632 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1994)
(same).
CONCLUSION
We conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the
findings of fact for the charges, and we approve the stipulation entered into by
Judge White-Labora and the JQC. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge
Deborah White-Labora to appear before this Court for the administration of a
public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA,
and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
ANY MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION MUST BE FILED
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MAY BE FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS
AFTER THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION.
-6-
NOT FINAL UNTIL THIS TIME PERIOD EXPIRES TO FILE A
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission
Honorable Krista Marx, Chair, Michael Louis Schneider, Executive Director and
General Counsel, Alexander John Williams, Assistant General Counsel, Judicial
Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner
Judge Deborah White-Labora, Judge, pro se, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami,
Florida,
for Respondent
-7-