Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 14-557 Re: Jessica J. Recksiedler , 161 So. 3d 398 ( 2015 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC15-311
____________
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 14-557 RE: JESSICA J.
RECKSIEDLER.
[April 9, 2015]
PER CURIAM.
In this case, we review the findings and recommendation of discipline of the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), recommending that Judge
Jessica J. Recksiedler, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge, receive the sanction
of a public reprimand for violating Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Florida
Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Recksiedler agreed to the JQC’s findings of fact
and recommendation of discipline and entered into a stipulation. We have
jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve
the stipulation, the findings of fact, and the recommended discipline of a public
reprimand.
I. BACKGROUND
The allegations in the Notice of Formal Charges filed by the JQC against
Judge Recksiedler stem from a series of interviews before the Fifth District Court
of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission (abbreviated in the stipulation as the
“5th DCA JNC”). As set forth in the stipulation:
During an interview on March 28, 2013, the JNC questioned Judge
Recksiedler regarding her driving record. Then, on March 17, 2014,
while driving to another interview with the 5th DCA JNC, the Florida
Highway Patrol stopped Judge Recksiedler and issued her a citation
for speeding. The traffic stop caused Judge Recksiedler to be late for
her interview with the JNC.
5. In her opening statement to the JNC on March 17, 2014,
Judge Recksiedler addressed the Commission’s previously expressed
concerns about her driving record by stating that she “takes its
concerns about her driving seriously.” At no point during or after her
interview, however, did Judge Recksiedler inform the members of the
JNC that she had received a speeding ticket that morning. The JQC
believes that the incompleteness of Judge Recksiedler’s statements to
the JNC constitutes a lack of candor. See In re Holloway, 832 So. 2d
716 (Fla. 2002) (holding that testimony in a proceeding that is
misleading and incomplete constitutes an ethical violation).
6. Later, on September 18, 2014, Judge Recksiedler had a third
interview before the 5th DCA JNC. That interview was videotaped by
a local news organization. The link to the interview is:
http://volusiaexposed.com/jnc/jnc9182014.html. During this
interview, a Commissioner asked Judge Recksiedler about her driving
record. “Judge, you came before us in March earlier this year and you
addressed some of the commission’s concerns regarding your driving
record and I was wondering how that was going. Have you had any
stops this year?”
7. When testifying before the JQC investigative panel, Judge
Recksiedler explained that she knew that each member of the JNC had
background information that included her traffic record, including her
March 17 stop. She misunderstood the question to be about stops
since her March 17 JNC appearance when she had received the
citation in route to the interview and as referenced by the questioner.
Thus, Judge Recksiedler testified, she answered “no.” While her
-2-
answer may not have been intentionally false, it was confusing and
misleading. Judge Recksiedler acknowledges that she should have
mentioned the March 17 traffic stop to avoid the confusion and to
ensure that the commission was aware that she was not trying to avoid
the issue.
The stipulation explains that Judge Recksiedler does not contest the JQC’s
finding that her conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. Judge Recksiedler also does not contest the JQC’s
recommended discipline of a public reprimand as the appropriate sanction for these
violations.
II. ANALYSIS
Article V, section 12, of the Florida Constitution, provides that in cases of
judicial misconduct, this Court “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC] and it may order that
the . . . judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.” 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 Flood,
150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2014) (quoting In re Woodard, 919 So. 2d 389, 390
(Fla. 2006)). “Although this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the
JQC great weight, the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination
-3-
to discipline a judge rests with this Court.” Id. (quoting In re Renke, 933 So. 2d
482, 493 (Fla. 2006)).
In its findings and recommendation of discipline, the JQC found that Judge
Recksiedler’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to act at all times in a manner that upholds
the integrity and independence of the judiciary, to avoid the appearance of
impropriety, and to avoid engaging in any activities that demean the judicial office.
Canon 1 states: “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.” Fla.
Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1. Canon 2A states: “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.” Fla. Code of Jud.
Conduct, Canon 2A. Canon 4A(2) states: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s
quasi-judicial activities so that they do not . . . undermine the judge’s
independence, integrity, or impartiality.” Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4A(2).
Canon 4A(3) states: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial
activities so that they do not . . . demean the judicial office.” Fla. Code of Jud.
Conduct, Canon 4A(3).
As set forth in the JQC’s findings and recommendation:
-4-
The Investigative Panel of the Commission has now entered
into a Stipulation with Judge Recksiedler in which Judge Recksiedler
admits that her conduct in omitting and later providing factually
inaccurate information regarding a traffic stop to the JNC was
inappropriate. This conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3)
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as set forth in the Stipulation . . . .
Judge Recksiedler has admitted the foregoing, accepts full
responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have
occurred.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that
while the judge did not provide the level of candor expected of a
judicial officer, it appears that her testimony before the JNC was not
intentionally dishonest[;] however, the statement of March 17, 2014,
was incomplete through omission, and the statement during the
September 18, 2014, interview, while perhaps the result of a
misunderstanding, was factually inaccurate and Judge Recksiedler did
not clarify her response. Accordingly, the Commission therefore
finds and recommends that in the interests of justice, the public
welfare and sound judicial administration will be well served by a
public reprimand of Judge Recksiedler.
Candor as a judge is clearly critical. The JQC determined that Judge
Recksiedler’s lack of candor may not have been “intentionally false” but it was
“confusing and misleading.” The JQC further determined that omitting important
information requested from the Fifth District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating
Commission and then later providing inaccurate information regarding the traffic
stop “was inappropriate.” We agree with the JQC that the incompleteness and
inaccuracy of the responses constitutes a lack of candor amounting to an ethical
violation where, as here, the statements are misleading. See In re Holloway, 832
So. 2d 716, 726-27 (Fla. 2002). We also agree with the JQC that Judge
-5-
Recksiedler’s conduct demonstrated a lack of candor not befitting the high
standards of ethical conduct that we expect of all judges in this state.
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.” In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098
(quoting In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005)). In this case, Judge
Recksiedler admitted to the wrongdoing, and upon review, we determine that the
JQC’s findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Accordingly, we agree with the JQC that Judge Recksiedler’s actions violated
Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Because we conclude that the findings of the JQC are supported by clear and
convincing evidence, we give these findings “persuasive force and great weight” in
our consideration of the JQC’s recommended discipline. Id. at 1099 (quoting In re
Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 2005)). The JQC has advised this Court that
the interests of justice, the public welfare, and sound judicial administration will be
well served by a public reprimand of Judge Recksiedler. We have also considered
that Judge Recksiedler “accepts full responsibility for the conduct set forth above,
admits that it should not have occurred, and regrets and apologizes for such
conduct.” We therefore approve the recommended discipline of a public
reprimand.
-6-
III. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, we conclude that there is clear and convincing
evidence in support of the JQC’s findings of fact as to all four violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, and we approve the stipulation entered into by Judge
Recksiedler and the JQC. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Jessica J.
Recksiedler 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.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ.,
concur.
LEWIS, J., did not participate.
PERRY, J., recused.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission
Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, and Alexander John Williams, Assistant General
Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner
Larry Gibbs Turner of Turner, O’Connor, Kozlowski, Gainesville, Florida,
for Judge Jessica J. Recksiedler, Respondent
-7-