Illegal Sentences Get Judge Censured

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct has censured a town court justice who imposed sentences in excess of the legal limit in 791 matters.

His story

Respondent testified that he was “shocked” when he learned of the sentencing errors. He itnposed the fines and surcharges from melnory instead of relying on the resources available to him. He acknowledged that “too many mistakes” were made and attributed his errors to “oversight,” “mental lapse,” “not paying attention,” “mis-memoriz[ing] the law,” “being overloaded” and “judicial error.” He believed that he devoted sufficient time to his judicial duties (about 20 hours a week), but testified that even if he had worked longer hours, “I probably still would have made some mistakes”; he stated, “It’s impossible not to make a mistake.” He noted that for several months during this 29-month period, he was also doing the work of his co-judge who was unavailable.

The commission also rejected the contention that the fault lay with staff

While respondent attributes many of these unlawful dispositions to the unauthorized actions of his staff, as a judge he bears full responsibility for his clerks’ conduct. This is especially so where, as the referee found, the record shows that during this period respondent did “little to nothing” to supervise his clerks, such as reviewing fine notices before they were sent or providing internal controls or written policies or procedures relating to the processing of cases (Report, p 5). Indeed, not until June 2013 three years after being served with formal charges addressing the sentencing errors he attributed to his clerks did respondent prepare a written “Policy Statement” for his staff, describing the court’s procedures for handling traffic cases and making it clear that the judge imposes all fines. In view of his ethical obligation to ensure that those subject to his direction and control follow the law and “adhere to the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge” (Rules, §100.3[C][2]), respondent is responsible for the sentences imposed by his court staff.

The commission also rejected the contentions that the defendants had an appellate remedy for the excessive sentences and that, in order to discipline him, his motives must have been “vile, improper or impure.” (Mike Frisch)