Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Darrin J. Westfaul
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-JP-00279-SCT
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
v.
DARRIN J. WESTFAUL
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
02/09/2007
HON. PATRICIA D. WISE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III
DARLENE D. BALLARD
PRO SE
CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
PUBLIC REPRIMAND; AND ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00 08/16/2007
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
RANDOLPH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶1.
On April 1, 2006, Darrin Westfaul (“Judge Westfaul”), Municipal Judge Pro Tem of
Batesville, Municipal Judge of Pope, and Municipal Judge of Courtland, was charged with
driving under the influence, first offense, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. Sect. 63-1130(1)(a) (Rev. 2004). Judge Westfaul pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined $1,043;
ordered to attend Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program classes; ordered to attend
a victim’s impact panel session; and sentenced to two days in jail, suspended on two years
good behavior. The fine was paid in full and Judge Westfaul attended all programs as
ordered.
¶2.
Judge Westfaul self-reported his charge to the Mississippi Commission on Judicial
Performance (“The Commission”). The Commission then filed a Formal Complaint, charging
Judge Westfaul with violating Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The
Commission further found Judge Westfaul’s conduct to be prejudicial to the administration
of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, causing Judge Westfaul’s conduct
to be actionable pursuant to Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. Judge
Westfaul did not file a response in anticipation of an agreement for sanctions being reached
between himself and the Commission.
¶3.
An Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation was filed by both
counsel for the Commission and the Respondent. Both parties stated the Agreed Statement
of Facts and Proposed Recommendation was being submitted in lieu of a formal hearing. In
the Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation, counsel for the Commission
and Judge Westfaul proposed that Judge Westfaul be publicly reprimanded and assessed the
costs of the proceeding, $100. In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed
Recommendation, the Commission found by clear and convincing evidence that Judge
Westfaul violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct and further found Judge
Westfaul’s conduct to be actionable pursuant to Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi
2
Constitution. The Commission approved the recommendation that Judge Westfaul be
publicly reprimanded and fined $100.
¶4.
The Commission and Judge Westfaul have now submitted the Commission’s
recommendation before this Court in a Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
“We conduct de novo review of judicial misconduct proceedings, giving great
deference to the findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, of the recommendations
of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. While we do give great deference
to the Commission's findings, we are also charged to render an independent judgment.” Miss.
Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So. 2d 209, 212 (Miss. 2006) (internal
citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Judge Westfaul was charged with violating Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. The Commission further asserted Judge Westfaul demonstrated conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, causing Judge
Westfaul’s conduct to be actionable pursuant to Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi
Constitution. Judge Westfaul admitted to committing these violations. The sanctions agreed
upon by both the Commission and Judge Westfaul were that Judge Westfaul be publicly
reprimanded and assessed the $100 cost of the proceedings.
¶7.
This Court’s decision in In Re Gibson set forth six factors to be considered when
determining the appropriate punishment for violations of the judicial canons. See In Re
3
Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss. 2004). We will examine each factor as applied to Judge
Westfaul.
¶8.
1) The length and character of the judge’s public service: Judge Westfaul has been
Municipal Judge Pro Tem of Batesville for eleven years, Municipal Judge of Courtland for
five and a half years and Municipal Judge of Pope for five years. From 1999 to 2002, Judge
Westfaul was a Youth Court Judge, Family Master and Special Master for Panola County.
Judge Westfaul has served as an adjunct professor at Northwest Community College for eight
years. He has presented and discussed legal topics to various community organizations, and
is a former member of the Mississippi Bar Association’s committee on problems of the
indigent. Further, Judge Westfaul was chairman and a member for many years of the
Mississippi Bar’s committee on the unauthorized practice of law. Presently, Judge Westfaul
is a member of various bar associations and civic organizations.
¶9.
2) Whether there is any prior case law on point: This Court has previously
addressed this issue in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Thomas, 722
So. 2d 629 (Miss. 1998).
¶10.
The facts sub judice are similar to those in Thomas. Judge Thomas was charged and
convicted of a first offense DUI. Judge Thomas, as did Judge Westfaul, self-reported his
violation and accepted responsibility for his actions and then accepted his conviction and
punishment expeditiously. Id. at 631-32. However, unlike Judge Westfaul, Judge Thomas
did not believe he should be subjected to public reprimand. Id. at 632. While this Court found
that Judge Thomas “maturely accepted the consequences of his actions,” the Court held that
4
he should be publicly reprimanded. Id. The Court ruled that the “position he enjoy[ed] as a
sitting judge require[d] that the resolution of this matter be known to the public.” Id.
¶11.
3) The magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered: Driving under the
influence is a serious offense and one not to be taken lightly. The facts of Judge Westfaul’s
case are clearly analogous to those of Judge Thomas, wherein by accepting responsibility for
his actions, Judge Westfaul “avoid[ed] a situation that could have further eroded the public’s
confidence in the bench.” Id. The record indicated that as a result of Judge Westfaul’s
offense, no one was physically harmed, nor was there any property damage.
¶12.
4) Whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of
conduct: This is an isolated incident. No evidence of a pattern of misconduct is before this
Court. Additionally, the Commission stated and the record reveals no prior disciplinary
history involving Judge Westfaul.
¶13.
5) Whether moral turpitude was involved: The Commission asserted that no moral
turpitude was involved. This Court has defined moral turpitude as “actions which involve
interference with the administration of justice, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery,
extortion, or other such actions which bring the judiciary into disrepute.” Gibson, 883 So.
2d at 1158 n. 2. This Court further defined moral turpitude in its ruling in Mississippi
Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gordon. “The bottom line of this element is that
we must determine whether a judge’s conduct crosses the line from simple negligence or
mistake, to willful conduct which takes advantage of a judge’s position for greed or other
inappropriate motives. If the conduct willfully subverts justice, more punishment is
5
warranted.” Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Gordon, 955 So. 2d 300, 305 (Miss.
2007).
¶14.
The Court agrees with the Commission that first-offense driving under the influence
is a serious matter. However, Judge Westfaul’s conduct did not willfully subvert justice and
does not involve moral turpitude.
¶15.
6) The presence or absence of mitigating circumstances: Judge Westfaul has no
prior disciplinary history and he self-reported this violation to the Commission. Judge
Westfaul has accepted responsibility for his actions and completed all punishment imposed
upon him without delay.
¶16.
The Commission and Judge Westfaul have agreed on the recommendation for
sanctions. Based on the foregoing factors, the sanctions imposed by the Commission are
commensurate with the violation.
CONCLUSION
¶17.
The Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations is granted. Judge Westfaul was
issued a public reprimand and assessed $100, which is a punishment consistent with this
Court’s holdings in In Re Gibson and Thomas. Accordingly, the sanctions issued by the
Commission are affirmed.
¶18.
JUDGE DARRIN J. WESTFAUL, MUNICIPAL JUDGE PRO TEM OF
BATESVILLE, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF POPE, AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF
COURTLAND, SHALL BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED AND ASSESSED COSTS
OF $100.00.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON
AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
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.
