Whether the State Commission on Judicial Conduct properly determined that all charges were supported by evidence establishing judicial misconduct and therefore justified removal of the Justice of the Ovid Town Court.

Yes. There is no basis for overturning a charge of misconduct when sufficient facts existed to prove an abuse of power, lack of judicial temperament, and mishandling of public funds.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that the facts sustained five charges of misconduct which became the basis for removing Petitioner from office. Charges I and II were both based on allegations of mishandled public funds, stemming from Petitioner's failure to timely deposit court funds into his official account, and failure to timely remit court funds to the State Comptroller. Charges III and IV alleged judicial misconduct arising, respectively, from a disagreement between Petitioner and a local attorney, and an incident where Petitioner allegedly acted in a vindictive manner towards a second attorney. The fifth charge, a Supplemental Charge I, alleged that Petitioner suspended a defendant's driver's license out of ill will for the attorney representing the defendant in a traffic case. The Court of Appeals granted Petitioner leave to appeal and determined that all charges were sufficiently established and justified removal.

The Court found nothing in the record to disturb the Commission's findings. Petitioner did not dispute the facts underlying Charges I and II, the mishandling of public funds, and stated himself that he had no reason or alibi for the tardy funds. The Commission found the charge established for Charge III, involving improper judicial conduct, when the attorney and his secretary testified to Petitioner's improper comments and communication. The Commission also found the second attorney's testimony credible with regard to Charge IV, regarding Petitioner's aggressive behavior in court against the attorney. Finally, Supplemental Charge I was also upheld due to evidence that Petitioner suspended the client's driver's license for failure to appear in court and subsequently admitted that the party and counsel had indeed appeared in court. In addition, Petitioner admitted that one of his reasons for suspending the client's license was the attorney's failure to be apologetic.

The Court found that Petitioner repeatedly exhibited judicial misconduct through abuse of power, lack of judicial temperament, and mishandling public funds. Because Petitioner's actions demonstrated repeated disregard for the standards of judicial conduct and the facts satisfactorily supported the Commission's determined sanction of removal, the Court upheld the sanction.