AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Honorable James Naranjo, a magistrate judge in Socorro, New Mexico, who engaged in misconduct by making an ex parte communication to Seventh Judicial District Court Judge Matthew Reynolds regarding his stepson, Albert Hernandez, who was jailed for nonpayment of child support. Naranjo, having no official role in the case, requested Judge Reynolds to consider reducing Hernandez's bond or releasing him from jail, leading to Judge Reynolds' recusal from the case (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that Judge Naranjo's actions constituted willful misconduct in office by making an ex parte communication, abusing the prestige of his judicial office to gain favorable treatment for his stepson, and vouching for his stepson's character, all in violation of specific provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 6-7).
• Respondent (Judge Naranjo): Admitted to the conduct and the violations alleged by the Commission. Agreed to the stipulated discipline, including enrollment in an ethics course, public censure, formal mentorship with supervised probation, and a suspension without pay for ninety days, with sixty days deferred subject to successful completion of probation (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether Judge Naranjo's ex parte communication to Judge Reynolds constituted willful misconduct in office in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Whether Judge Naranjo abused the prestige of his judicial office to gain favorable treatment for his stepson.
• Whether Judge Naranjo's actions in vouching for his stepson's character to Judge Reynolds violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico accepted the stipulated agreement and consent to discipline between the Judicial Standards Commission and Judge Naranjo, imposing a ninety-day suspension with sixty days deferred, subject to the conditions set forth in the agreement (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Charles W. Daniels, with Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justices Richard C. Bosson, Edward L. Chávez, and Barbara J. Vigil concurring, found that Judge Naranjo's actions violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations included conveying the impression that someone could influence the judge, permitting personal relationships to influence judicial conduct, engaging in ex parte communications, and vouching for the character of a person in a legal proceeding. The Court emphasized the importance of public confidence in the judiciary's independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence, and noted that Judge Naranjo's actions undermined these principles. The disciplinary measures, including public censure and suspension, were deemed appropriate to address the misconduct and serve as a reminder of the judiciary's ethical obligations (paras 10-22).