Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-092RESOLUTION NO. 74-92 W1U,R1-;AS, this BOARD did issue RESOLUTION No. 74-31 on May 8, 1374, concerning the suspension of the County Judge, and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Circuit Court. was Auth- orized to receive 1/12 of the County Court's annual budget each month and to pay direct the operating expenses of the County Court, and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Circuit Court did maintain a separate accounting ledger showing rec Apts and expenditures by the Clerk on behalf of the County Court, and WHEREAS, the Clerk did ask for, and receive, the ledger and all funds held by the County Judge, and 14HEREAS, the County Judd., has been reinstated effective on or about November 27, 197.4. NO11, THEREI'LRE, BE IT RCSOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that upon receipt by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of official. notice from the STATE OF FLORIDA of the reinstatement of the County Judge, that all records be returned to the County Judcle and that the Clerk of the Circr.it Court shall be relieved of his obligation er;tablished wider RESOLUTION No. 74-31. >e i_t further resolved that the County Judge resume his requisitions of 1.'17 of his budget each month to meet the Courts' expenses as provided by law. December 4, 1974 I',OARD OF COUNTY COE-1Y11.SSI0NS'R'_7 Cie INDIAN l ,JEi, C 1'i.', FI , DA Attest: i,y_L.f�U2kLs- �hairman erk J 40 • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JULY TERM, A. D. 1974 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1974 IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No. 73-10 ** ** CASE NO. 45,353 ** O R D E R On November 20, 1974 the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission filed its following findings of fact and unanimous recommendation in respect of the above matter: THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Florida Judicial. Qualifications Commission sitting in Indian River County, Florida, October 28 through November 1, 1974. Respondent Graham W. Stikelether, County Court- Judge, was given notice of the hearing pursuant to Rule 11 (a) of the Rules of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (RFJQC), and he appeared in person and with his counsel. The purpose of the hearing was to determine: 1. Whether respondent had willfully or persistently engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Judiciary. 2. Whether respondent, while a Judge, engaged in the practice of law. 3. Whether respondent has a disability that seriously interfers with the performance of his duties as Judge of the County Court of Indian River County, Florida, which is, or is likely to become, permanent in nature. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is 44 years of age and was elected County Court Judge of Indian River County in November 1972. Ile assumed office January l., 1.973. 2. Sometime during March or May 1973 Philip Thibideau, Director of the DWI Counterattack School in Respondent's area, complained to Chief Justice James C. Adkins that Respondent was not cooperating in the DWI Program and that he had observed respondent treat defendants "less than properly". 3. On June 20, 1973, Chief Justice Adkins directed County Court Judge Gerald Klein to go to Indian River County, observe Respondent's conduct, and report his findings to the Traffic Review Committee. Judge Klein observed Respondent in Court on June 27, 1973. 4. On October 9, 1973, Circuit Court Judge 11onjamin M. Tench, at the request of Chief Justice Adkins, observed ab Respondent conduct court in Indian River County. 5. This matter was referred to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. 40 6. Pursuant to Rule 6 (b) RFJQC, Respondent was given Notice of Investigation on January 25, 1974, and in accordance with the same Rule he appeared before the Commission for approximately four and one-half hours on the same date. 7. On April 8, 1974, formal proceedings were instituted pursuant to Rule 7, RFJQC, and thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court suspended Respondent pursuant to Rule 8 RFJQC. 8. Excerpts from tape recordings of court sessions over which Respondent presided on April 24, June 6, June 12, June 27, and October 9, 1973, include comments made by Respondent which the Commission finds were rude, intemperate and which constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary. 9. In 1963, during a period when Respondent was having difficulty sleeping, his family physician prescribed a drug called Doriden. Respondent continued to take Doriden until four days before he had what was described as a "serious seizure" in October, 1973. The evidence before this Commission is that, contrary to promotional claims made in the early 1960's that Doriden was non -addictive, subsequent studies and experttestimony indicate it is. The evidence also indicates that Doriden often causes low tolerance, incoherence, confusion, depression and rambling. Respondent no longer takes Doriden, but is required to take medication daily to prevent seizures and to control hypertension. 10. Based on the evidence before the Commission, including the testimony of Dr. Paul Satts, Ph. D., and Dr. James L. Mason, M. D., the Commission finds that during most of 1973 through January 25, 1974, Respondent: (a) was going through a transitory period of disfunction, a manic episode or a series of manic episodes or (b) was a person with an obsessive personality who came under a great deal of emotional strain in early 1973, caused by the impending marriage of his daughter, the pressures of a new, unfamiliar and demanding position plus the cumulative effects of a very "bad drug". In either event, Respondent is apparently in control of his mental facilities and emotions at this time and no serious illness is expected in the future. Both doctors testified there is no evidence of brain damage. 11. Prior to assuming office in January 1973, Respondent turned all of the files from his law practice over to Attorney Kenneth Padgett and Respondent terminated the practice of law. Respondent neither sought nor received compensation for his law practice. Respondent stated he would not sell his former clients.In and September 1973, Respondent signed two petitions, prepared Y subsequently filed by Attorney Padgett in two estates. Respondent testified that he was under the mistaken impression that the Code of Judicial Conduct permitted him to close pending estates within a certain time period. other evidence supports Respondent's testimony.' (The Code of Judicial Conduct does permit judges to continue an executors of pending estates until September 30, 1975. 201 no. 2d 21 Al P. 33.) -2- N ® The Commission finds that Respondent erred in signing the two petitions in question as attorney for the Estates of Colborn H. Blake and Janet Watts Engelfried, deceased,but that he neither received nor sought compensation for his acts and ® that his only interest was to secure court approval for what he had done while he was a practicing attorney and to assist Attorney Padgett, who was closing the estates. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission concludes from the evidence before it that: 1. The conduct of Respondent in certain judicial proceedings over which he presided was rude, intemperate and constituted conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, but that at the time of the conduct in question Respondent was suffering a medical disability. Since Respondent is apparently in full control of his mental facilities and emotions at this time and since in all likelihood he will enjoy a full recovery, the Commission recommends his suspension be removed and he be returned to his duties as a County Court Judge. 2. Respondent erred in executing petitions as attorney for the Estates above named, but that, considering all surrounding circumstances, the errors are not of such magnitude that a recommendation of disciplinary action is required. The Commission's recommendation is accepted by the Court and it is ordered that the suspension be removed instanter and the Respondent, Graham W. Stikelether, be and is hereby returned to his duties as County Court Judge. A True Copy 4 TEST: s , Whi.te� Cl rk"Su preme Court. Y CC: Honorable Sherman N. Smith, Jr. Honorable R. L. Edwards Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee Honorable Richard T. Earle, Jr. Mt 40 OFFICE. OF THE COUNTY .IUnOR 1`'iQ fni INDIAN RIVER COUNTY f Graham W. Stikelether, Jr, VBpU Iti;nen, F'1.otann a2oao C�h, � b �xxxwx x�c 0.1,9 O JUDGE C\ I Memo To: Board of County Commissioners From: Judge Graham W. Stikelether, Jr. Date- November 25, 1974 As of this date, I have not received the official signed notice of reinstate- ment from the Supreme Court; however, it is eminent and can come any day. I anticipate actively resuming the bench on December 9th, however, I will resume my official administrative duties the day that I receive my letter of reinstatement. As you know, upon my being suspended by the Supreme Court in April, all of my books, accounts and ledgers for the office, as well as the budget had been transferred to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. It is my understanding that the budget for my office and all of the books and records as above indicated were to remain with the Clerk's office until I was reinstated, at which time the same would be returned to me. By with letter, I am respectfully requesting that you authorize Mr. Ralph Harris, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, that upon receipt of a copy of the Order of Reinstatement from me that he return to my office all of my books, records, ledgers, etc. that he has in his position and that he also let me know the status of my budget and honor requisitions by me on the same. I am making this request so that these matters may be expedited and due to the bi-monthly meetings of the commission, a greal deal of time could be saved by authorizing my request to be effective immediately upon my reinstatement. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 1,% 1 r 2 /(I'. Graham W. StR—clether, Jr, GWS /Jr, : gae c. c. Ralph Harris, Clerk of Circuit Court Paul Burch, County Attorney