High court won't discipline Locatelli, finds negligence but not willful misconduct in contempt case

Posted 6/14/2007 05:27:00 PM

The New Mexico Supreme Court has rejected a request to discipline a Las Cruces judge who admitted that he let anger and personal feelings affect actions related to his decision to issue contempt of court charges against two attorneys in 2004.

Municipal Judge James T. Locatelli acted negligently but did not engage in willful misconduct, the high court stated in an opinion issued today, so he won’t be disciplined.

In October, the Judicial Standards Commission sought a purging of the contempt charges, a formal reprimand, formal mentorship, an ethics course and reimbursement of the commission’s costs and expenses after finding that Locatelli improperly issued the charges and should have recused himself from the case.

According to the commission’s petition for discipline, the matter began in April 2004, when Locatelli accepted a guilty plea from and sentenced a woman accused of shoplifting. Sometime after that, the woman hired Las Cruces attorney Marcia J. Milner and appealed the case to District Court. Former Assistant City Attorney Richard Jacquez represented the city in the appeal.

During a hearing in District Court on a motion to dismiss the case, Milner argued that the woman’s prior plea agreement wasn’t valid. Jacquez argued that it was, but the judge sided with Milner. The woman pleaded guilty again and was sentenced.

When Locatelli learned of the situation, he called a hearing in the woman’s municipal court case and presented both attorneys with criminal complaints charging them with indirect criminal contempt of court. That stemmed from his belief that Jacquez failed to adequately represent the city.

Locatelli admitted afterward that the action was in response to the “novel question of what I as an inferior judge could do if I believed my decisions were being nullified by inaction of the city attorney.” The commission found that his actions “demonstrated bad faith or otherwise exceeded his lawful authority. His contempt proceedings against Mr. Jacquez and Ms. Milner had no legal or factual basis. Because (Locatelli) had no jurisdiction over Mr. Jacquez and Ms. Milner” in the district court case, “he abused his contempt power, and committed gross error of law.”

In addition, the commission found, Locatelli’s actions were based in part on his “previously formed opinion of the lack of professional competency of Richard Jacquez and the prior conflicts between the municipal court and the office of the city attorney.”

That dispute began in early 2004 when Locatelli and Municipal Judge Melissa Miller-Byrnes complained to city management about the handling of cases by prosecutors and police. When mediation failed, they wrote a letter to the local newspaper alleging incompetence by police and city prosecutors.

After the letter was published, the city attorney’s office filed a complaint with the commission, which asked the high court to discipline the judges. The high court dismissed the complaint related to the letter, but chastised Miller-Byrnes for calling Jacquez a “smart ass.” The judges later sued in an unsuccessful attempt to get the city to pay their legal fees.

Court tells judges to not follow Locatelli’s example

All that history, Locatelli admitted before the commission, led him to be angry when he believed Jacquez was undermining his authority in the most recent case.

“I admit to being angry, and will accept appropriate sanctions for that. I do regret letting my personal feelings affect my judicial demeanor,” Locatelli told the commission.

The high court found that Locatelli “acted negligently, both in charging the attorneys with indirect contempt and in failing to dismiss the case promptly.” Essentially, the court said Locatelli should have been more diligent in learning what actually transpired in District Court before issuing the charges and, once he learned about what transpired, should have moved more quickly to dismiss the charges.

However, the court said, negligent violations of judicial ethics do not justify discipline or removal.

The high court issued a formal opinion, not just a ruling on the commission’s request, so it could clarify that, in similar situations, judges should report what they believe to be improper conduct by attorneys to the disciplinary board, not issue contempt citations. In their opinion, justices made clear that they did not want to encourage what Locatelli had done.

Commission Director Jim Noel said the commission did what it’s charged with doing. It investigated allegations and made a determination – in this case that there was willful misconduct.

“The process works,” Noel said. “The Supreme Court doesn’t always adopt what the commission says. It clearly didn’t in this case. It has in others.”

Locatelli could not be reached for comment.