Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Jerry Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 1998-JP-01808-SCT
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
v.
JERRY JONES
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM WHICH
APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING
FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
11/13/98
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III
IRENE MIKELL BUCKLEY
WILLIAM LISTON
CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
PUBLIC REPRIMAND- 04/15/1999
5/6/99
EN BANC.
SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On September 30, 1997, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint
charging Judge Jerry Jones, Justice Court Judge, District One, Webster County, Mississippi, with judicial
misconduct. The allegations of misconduct arise from the improprieties involving alcohol-related cases
pending before the court during 1997. The Commission found that Judge Jones violated Section 177A of
the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 as amended, and the judicial canons because of his wilful misconduct in
reducing DUI charges in violation of the statutes.
¶2. We agree with the Commission. Judge Jones' wilful conduct in reducing DUI charges amounts to a
violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended and judicial canons 1, 2A,
2B, and 3A(1) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Jones shall be publicly reprimanded,
fined $1,500, and shall pay all costs associated with this case in the amount of $1,485.99. Mississippi
Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 724 So.2d 873 (Miss. 1998).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶3. This matter appeared for trial before a three-judge panel of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial
Performance. A hearing was held before the panel on May 13, 1998. On October 13, 1998 the panel filed
its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On October 26, 1998 the Respondent filed his Objections to
the Panel's Opinion.
¶4. The formal complaint against Judge Jones contains six counts alleging official improprieties relating to his
handling of alcohol-related cases pending in his court during 1997. The Commission found that Jones
engaged in a pattern of conduct wherein he sanctioned the reduction of DUI second offense charges to DUI
first-offense which occurred on three occasions. Further, Jones sanctioned reduction of DUI cases to
unrelated crimes of "disorderly conduct." Also the Commission found that the cumulative effect of Jones'
conduct constituted willful official misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which
brings the judicial office into disrepute as set forth in Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890,
as amended. In addition, the Commission found that Judge Jones' actions with reference to these cases
deprived Webster County of fine monies which would have been mandatory had Judge Jones followed the
sentencing laws relating to DUI cases.
¶5. The Commission found Judge Jones guilty of misconduct on all six counts. The Commission
recommends to this Court that Judge Jerry Jones be publicly reprimanded for misconduct in the office. In
addition, the Commission recommended that a fine of $1500.00 be levied against Judge Jones and that
Judge Jones pay all costs associated with the prosecution of this matter, in the amount of $1,485.99.
¶6. On January 5, 1999, the Commission filed its Motion For Approval of Recommendations and
Memorandum in Support of its Motion For Approval. On January 7, 1999, Judge Jones filed his Response
of the Motion. In his response Judge Jones, while not in agreement with the findings and conclusions
reached by the Commission, accepted the recommendations filed by the Commission.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7. The appropriate standard of review for a judicial disciplinary proceeding is derived from Rule 10(E) of
the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance which provides:
Based upon a review of the entire record, the Supreme Court shall prepare and publish a written
opinion and judgment directing such disciplinary action, if any, as it finds just and proper. The
Supreme Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation
of the Commission. In the event that more than one recommendation for discipline of the judge is filed,
the Supreme Court may render a single decision or impose a single sanction with respect to all
recommendations.
Mississippi Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v. Dodds, 680 So. 2d 180, 190 (Miss. 1996); Mississippi Comm'n
on Jud. Perf. v. Chinn, 611 So. 2d 849, 850 (Miss. 1992). Although this Court is not bound by the
Commission's findings, they are given great deference when based on clear and convincing evidence.
Chinn, 611 So. 2d at 850.
I. WHETHER JONES' CONDUCT CONSTITUTES WILFUL MISCONDUCT IN
OFFICE AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
WHICH BRINGS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE INTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 177A OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION (1890), AS AMENDED?
¶8. Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution allows a judge to be sanctioned for willful misconduct in
office. This Court has defined willful misconduct as:
[T]he improper or wrongful use of the power of his office by a judge acting intentionally, or with gross
unconcern for his conduct, and generally in bad faith. It involves more than an error in judgment or a
mere lack of diligence. Necessarily, the term would encompass conduct involving moral turpitude,
dishonesty, or corruption, and also any knowing misuse of the office, whatever the motive. However,
these elements are not necessary to a finding of bad faith. A specific intent to use the powers of the
judicial to accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was beyond the
legitimate exercise of his authority constitutes bad faith....
Willful misconduct in office of necessity is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that
brings the judicial office into disrepute.
Chinn, 611 So. 2d at 849. In order to answer the question of willful misconduct, a careful inspection must
be conducted into the alleged violations by Judge Jones.
¶9. The Commission argues that Judge Jones reduced a 1st offense DUI received by Sherry Callahan to
Disorderly Conduct. The Commission argues that this was in violation of state law. Ms. Callahan and other
witnesses testified that it was part of a plea bargain and that Judge Jones was aware of the deal. The
Commission asserts that Jones' actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 3A(1) of the Mississippi Code of
Judicial Conduct.
¶10. Jones argues that there was statutory authority pursuant to Section 99-19-25 of the Mississippi Code
to suspend the sentence on conditions set forth by the court within the limits of the statute. Judge Jones
argues that the arresting officer, Owings, had a conversation with the defense attorney prior to the case
being called and withdrew the citation charging DUI before the case was called for trial. Further, the officer
swore an affidavit alleging disorderly conduct based on Ms. Callahan's conduct at the Webster County Jail.
Jones contends that the citation alleging Ms. Callahan was guilty of DUI did not allege a blood alcohol
content reading of .10% or greater and further that Jones did not reduce a DUI to Disorderly Conduct.
¶11. The Commission argues that Judge Jones improperly sanctioned the reduction of a DUI 2nd offense
received by Benjamin Harrison in Webster County on April 14, 1997.
¶12. Judge Jones testified before the panel that the affidavit asserting 2nd offense was insufficient and there
was no court abstract in the case file reflecting Harrison's prior conviction for DUI 1st offense. However, a
witness employed by the Webster County Justice Clerk's office testified that she saw a valid court abstract
in the file prior to the date of the trial of this matter. Further, it was found that she personally pulled the
abstract and placed it in the file.
¶13. The Commission argues that Judge Jones improperly reduced DUI 2nd offense stemming from
infractions lodged against Donald Allen Anthony on March 7, 1997. Anthony was charged with DUI 2nd
offense and Careless Driving. The records reflect that Anthony had previously incurred two DUI 1st offense
convictions.
¶14. On May 21, 1997, this case was set for trial. Judge Jones noted at that time that there was not a valid
court abstract setting for the Anthony's prior DUI. Court Clerk employee, Janice Wade testified at the
hearing that she advised Judge Jones that she had placed the abstract in the file herself. Jones deferred the
case until June 17, 1997. Witnesses testified that Judge Jones said he was taking the case under
advisement. Judge Jones denied making that statement. Although the case was continued until June 17,
1997, Anthony's attorney appeared before Judge Jones on May 28, 1997, a special court date, and
entered a guilty plea to DUI 1st on behalf of Mr. Anthony, who was not present.
¶15. The Commission argues that Judge Jones reduced a DUI 2nd offense to a DUI 1st offense. This was
one of four charges lodged against Sherman L. Butler on February 7, 1997. On February 19, 1997, Butler
pled guilty to charges of Careless Driving, Suspended Drivers License for DUI, and Possession of Alcohol.
¶16. Judge Jones asserts that this reduction was proper in that there was no BAC finding on the face of the
affidavit and that this was the reason for the reduction.
¶17. On May 18, 1996, John P. Longest was charged with DUI 1st offense, Speeding, and Possession of
Alcohol. Over a year later, on July 10, 1997, he plead no contest to the speeding and possession charges.
The DUI charge was reduced to Disorderly Conduct and Judge Jones placed Longest on the "court watch"
intensive supervision program.
¶18. The Commission contends that Miss. Code Ann. §99-15-26, which establishes intensive supervision
and permits withholding adjudication on completion of certain conditions, is not available in any cases
brought under Mississippi's Implied Consent Law. In other words, the Commission contends that "court
watch" is not available in DUI cases.
¶19. Judge Jones contends that he acted under the belief that the use of the "court watch" program is
authorized by Section 99-19-25 of the Mississippi Code. Further, Judge Jones contends that the arresting
officer had conversations with Vic Carmody, the defense attorney, about signing an affidavit alleging
disorderly conduct which is how the disorderly conduct arose and the "court watch" program sentence of
Mr. Longest.
¶20. Lastly, the Commission argues that the cumulative conduct of Judge Jones constitutes willful official
misconduct and the evidence establishes this fact sufficient to the proof required by Section 177A of the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended.
¶21. Section 63-11-39 provides that a DUI charge may only be reduced to a non-DUI offense if there is
no BAC (blood alcohol content) reading of .10%. If there is no BAC reading, the DUI charge may be
reduced by the court on a motion by the prosecutor. M.C.A. § 63-11-39 (Supp. 1998).
¶22. As to the first count, on the night of trial, the defense attorney approached the arresting officer in order
to make a deal to drop the DUI charge and charge Ms. Callahan with disorderly conduct. Officer Owings
signed an affidavit to that effect. This occurred prior to the case going before Judge Jones. Judge Jones
asked Ms. Callahan how she would plead and she pled guilty to disorderly conduct.
¶23. In the second count, Judge Jones reduced a DUI 2nd offense. Judge Jones testified before the panel
that affidavit was insufficient and there was no abstract in the file reflecting Harrison's prior conviction.
However, there is a BAC reading and Harrison's prior DUI conviction is contained in the record.
¶24. As to the third count, Judge Jones reduced a DUI 2nd offense. The records reflect that Anthony had
previously received two DUI 1st offense convictions. Further there was a BAC reading of .10% or greater.
¶25. In the fourth count, Judge Jones reduced a DUI 2nd to a DUI 1st stating that the reduction was proper
since there was no BAC finding. However, the record reveals that Butler refused the intoxilyzer test.
¶26. In the fifth count, Judge Jones reduced a DUI 1st offense Disorderly Conduct and placed John
Longest in the "court watch" program. Judge Jones contends that he did not reduce the DUI charge
because it is still pending. Additionally, Judge Jones testified that he felt that he had authority to sentence
Longest to the court watch program according to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-26. However, during the
hearing, Longest testified that he was under the belief that his lawyer made a deal with the judge to reduce
his charge of DUI to Disorderly Conduct in exchange that he go to the court watch program for 12 months.
Further, Longest testified that if he went to the court watch, the DUI was not supposed to be on his record.
¶27. We find that, in all of these counts, Judge Jones violated M.C.A. Section 63-11-39. This statute does
not provide for the reduction of a DUI offense to a disorderly conduct offense where there is a BAC
reading of 10% or greater. This is similar to this Court's holding in Mississippi Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v.
Dodds, 680 So. 2d 180 that the statutes do not allow for the reduction of DUI to a charge of possession of
beer an whiskey, there is nothing in the statutes that allows for the reduction of DUI to a charge of
disorderly conduct. Further, in his Response to the Motion for Approval by the Mississippi Commission on
Judicial Performance, while not in agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the Commission,
Judge Jones accepted the recommendations filed.
¶28. Having found Judge Jones' actions to be in violation the Judicial Canons and willful official misconduct;
we now consider the appropriate sanctions.
¶29. "The imposition of sanctions is a matter left solely to the discretion of this Court." Mississippi
Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929, 942 (Miss. 1997)When determining
appropriate judicial sanctions, the Commission must consider mitigating factors pursuant to this Court's
holding in In Re Baker, 535 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 1988); Miss. Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v. Walker, 565 So.
2d 1117 (Miss. 1990). Such factors are set forth below.
(1) The length and character of the Judge's public service.
Judge Jones has served as a Justice Court Judge since January 1996.
(2) Positive contributions made by the judge to the court and the community.
The record contains no information regarding this factor.
(3) The lack of prior judicial precedent on the incident in issue.
At the time Judge Jones took action in these cases, Mississippi law was clearly set forth in Mississippi
Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So.2d 180 (Miss. 1996).
(4) Commitment to fairness and innovative procedural form on the part of the judge.
Judge Jones presented witnesses in the proceedings below, each of whom testified that Judge Jones is a fair
and well respected judge.
(5) The magnitude of the offense.
The conduct at issue in this case is the improper reduction of DUI offenses. Moreover, Mississippi law
clearly defined the limits of the justice court judge's authority.
(6) The number of persons affected.
Five individuals had their DUI offenses improperly reduced.
(7) Whether moral turpitude was involved.
Moral turpitude was not involved in this case.
¶30. The Commission contends that it is no novice to the consideration of improper judicial disposition of
alcohol-related cases, having had far too many opportunities to consider improprieties in such cases at the
justice court level. Further, the Commission contends that the precedent is substantial.
¶31. Since Judge Jones has not previously been subject to formal disciplinary charges, the Commission
argues that Judge Jones should be publicly reprimanded for misconduct in office. Additionally, that Judge
Jones' actions deprived Webster County, Mississippi of fine monies, the Commission argues that a fine of
$1500.00 be levied against Judge Jones and also pay all costs associated with the prosecution of this
inquiry in the amount of $1,485.99.
¶32. We agree with the Commission. Having weighed each factor, public reprimand is warranted. This
Court has upheld public reprimands for improperly reducing DUI charges. See Mississippi Comm'n on
Judicial Performance v. Emmanuel, 688 So.2d 222 (Miss. 1996).
CONCLUSION
¶33. The facts in this case were uncontroverted. As a result, Judge Jones either knew or should have
known that his actions were in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him as a justice court judge. Based
on the magnitude of the conduct, Judge Jones engaged in willful misconduct in office or conduct which is
prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. It should be noted
that Judge Jones accepts the recommendations filed by the Commission. Accordingly, the recommendation
of public reprimand is affirmed and that the reprimand be read in open Circuit Court. Furthermore, Judge
Jones is fined $1,500 and taxed with all costs of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
proceedings in the amount of $1,485.99.
¶34. JERRY JONES, JUSTICE COURT JUDGE, IS HEREBY PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED,
TO BE READ IN OPEN CIRCUIT COURT, FINED $1,500.00, AND TAXED WITH ALL
COSTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,485.99.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, MILLS, WALLER AND
COBB, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
