Houston Court of Appeals Justice Jim Sharp soon to face the voters' verdict for misconduct in office

Judicial Elections as a Remedy to Improve the Judicial System  

Having distinguished himself with a formal reprimand by the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct, followed by a like resolution by a special court of inquiry assembled by the Texas Supreme Court -- in his very first term on the First Court of Appeals, no less - Houston Court of Appeals Justice Jim Patrick Sharp is facing his forthcoming demise as a public official at the ballot box. Elected in 2008 by a narrow margin, Justice Sharp is up for re-election this election season as his 6-year term ends Dec 31, 2014. He performed poorly in the Houston Bar Association's poll of judicial candidates. 

Jim Sharp: Seeking re-election in 2014 to seat on First Court of Appeals
despite Censure by Judicial Conduct Commission 

Sharp's antics range from jumping on his desk and having his picture taken by a photographer for the Houston Chronicle, removing  furniture under cover of darkness without facility management

approval from his erstwhile chamber in the building of the South Texas College of Law to the newly restored 1910 Harris County Courthouse, and picking a fight with security personnel at said courthouse merely because they were doing their humble jobs and would not let him bypass the metal detector screening without showing his badge.

But nothing exemplifies the complete lack of judicial temperament and decorum more starkly than the tirade Sharp launched against employees of the Brazoria County Juvenile Probation Department when they wouldn't accommodate his intervention, seeking -- with reference to his authority as a member of the court of appeals overseeing the judges of ten counties -- the immediate release of the juvenile daughter of a female friend who had been caught shop-lifting; -- "popped", as Sharp put it.

Sharp's rants against the Brazoria County officers involved in the juvenile matters ran the gamut of appellations from "arrogant little prick" and "son of a bixxx" to "stupid axxhole" to "xxxxsuckers".

In his subsequent disciplinary proceeding Sharp sought to justify his impertinent outburst, and use of gutter slang, by averring -- ironically -- that he had to make sure they understood that he was not just a "Joe Schmo down the street". He also averred that he was just "venting".

A psychiatrist hired by Sharp, Dr. Stephen Tew, offered a mild diagnosis of adult attention deficit disorder, but conceded that it was not the sole producing cause of the wayward conduct that brought Sharp to the attention of the Judicial Conduct Commission. In other words, the man has behavioral issues, and they cannot be chalked up to a mental conditions as some sort of clinical excuse for clearly inappropriate behavior.

Dr Stephen Tew's fee for testimony on behalf of Justice Jim Sharp in his disciplinary case
before a special court as reported to the Texas Ethics Commission

Sharp was not just venting. He was trying to use his official position as a member of the First Court of Appeals to secure special favors for the teenage child of a woman with whom he had some sort of personal relationship; accompanied by a tirade of verbal abuse so vile it makes one cringe merely reporting it.

At the end of the disciplinary process, the not-so Honorable Jim Sharp was not removed from office. Nor deprived of his perch and the power to do more harm to the integrity of the judicial system through his participation in appellate decision-making. But that will likely happen, come November.

Democracy has its quirks. It can get unqualified people into public office, to be sure, but it can also flush them out when they betray the public's expectations, and the citizenry's trust. The ballot box can deliver much deserved justice when the peers that get to pass judgment and censor an errant colleague in the disciplinary process stop short of removing him from the bench he has sullied.

 Public official Jim Sharp's less than judicious choice of words:

Some of the findings on Sharp's verbal abuse of county employees 

THE CASE OF HOUSTON JUDGE JIM SHARP 
Now judicial ethics continuing education material 

Justice Sharp (Houston Court of Appeals) Judicial Discipline 

https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/ag/GOOD_LESSONS_FROM_BAD_JUDGES_AG_2014_Materials.pdf

LINKS TO EXAMPLES OF JUSTICE SHARP'S SELF-INFLICTED BAD PRESS

Houston Chronicle editorial on Justice Jim Sharp’s poor judgment (2012)  
Houston judge (Jim Sharp) censored for 'abusive' behavior (2012 Houston Chronicle article) 
Houston Press: Judge Jim Sharp - Rate His Cursing as the tries to spring friend's daughter from jail (9/7/2012) 

HOW CANDIDATE SHARP RATES WITH LOCAL ATTORNEYS: BAR POLL RESULT

Local Bar Poll Results: Jim Sharp lagging behind even though he is the incumbent
with better name-recognition

HALLOWEEN UPDATE: HOLY SMOKE!

The Hon Jim Sharp - featured speaker at Houston NORML Halloween ("Halloweed") event. 

Looking for a few last-minute weed-minded votes?

Ex-Judge Denise Pratt (non) news - Sanctions pronouncement by State Commission on Judicial Conduct "with all deliberate speed"

Former Harris County Family District Court Judge Denise Pratt finally slapped on the wrist by the State Commission of Judicial Conduct for tardiness and apparent back-dating of orders to cover up her lack in diligence in getting the business of the court done. Ironically, the sanctions opinion was tardy too. Pratt is long gone from office and lost her bid for re-election.  

The pdf version of the sanctions order, issued September 4, 2014, can be found at http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/actions/FY2015-PUBSANC.pdf

Here is a text verbatim (it' a rather tedious read). 
The bottom line: A Public Reprimand.

Given all the coverage in the local media at the time the scandal broke, and the story developed, it's hardly big news now. 

PUBLIC SANCTIONS

FY 2015

The following are public sanctions (reproduced in their entirety) which were issued by the Commission during fiscal year 2015. The public records for these cases are available for inspection at the Commission’s offices located at 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 145, Austin, Texas.

BEFORE THE

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CJC NOS. 14-0102-DI, 14-0165-DI, 14-0224-DI, 14-0403-DI,

14-0435-DI, 14-0468-DI, 14-0472-DI, 14-0473-DI, 14-0484-DI,

14-0508-DI, 14-0529-DI, 14-0654-DI&14-0655-DI

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

HONORABLE DENISE V. PRATT

FORMER JUDGE, 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

During its meeting on August 13-15, 2014, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a review of the allegations against the Honorable Denise V. Pratt, Former Judge of the 311th Judicial District Court, Houston, and Harris County, Texas. Judge Pratt appeared before the Commission on August 14, 2014, and gave testimony.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Judge Pratt was elected to the 311th Judicial District Court bench in November 2010, and assumed the bench on January 1, 2011. Starting in October 2013, the Commission began receiving complaints filed by attorneys, litigants, and confidential sources alleging numerous incidents of misconduct against Judge Pratt, including malfeasance by backdating court orders and judgments, excessive and unreasonable delays in issuing decisions, a lack of diligence in attending to the business of the court, and incompetence in performing the duties of office. Many of the matters raised in the complaints became the subject of extensive local media attention in the Houston area. In particular, it was disclosed in the press that allegations contained in the complaint of attorney Greg Enos had become the subject of a criminal investigation by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office into the conduct of Judge Pratt.

In Enos’ criminal complaint, Judge Pratt was accused of backdating court orders and renditions in order to cover up for the lengthy delays in her rulings in contested family law cases. It was alleged that Judge Pratt backdated the orders to make it appear that she had issued rulings sooner than she actually did and that the judge was assisted by court staff, who rolled back the clerk’s date stamp, then initialed and filed backdated orders knowing that Judge Pratt had not signed the documents on the dates she claimed. Enos provided examples in six cases of orders or renditions that appeared to have been signed by Judge Pratt months earlier but that were not filed or provided to the parties or their attorneys until much later and well after the time to appeal had expired. According to media reports, Judge Pratt’s lead clerk, Marilyn Epps, who had twenty-five years of experience as a Harris County court clerk, resigned following an investigation by the Harris County District Clerk’s office into the backdating allegations after admitting to one instance of rolling back her date stamp to match what Judge Pratt had written as the date she purportedly signed the rendition. However, there appeared to be no evidence to support a finding that Epps engaged in this conduct at Judge Pratt’s request, direction, or instruction. In December 2013, a grand jury investigating Enos’ complaint against Judge Pratt declined to indict the judge. During this time, Judge Pratt filed to run for re-election and became one of four candidates vying for election to the 311th District Court in the March 2014 Republican Primary.

In January 2014, additional complaints were filed with the Commission after Judge Pratt issued dismissal orders disposing of more than approximately 600 pending cases on December 30-31, 2013. According to the complaints, without notice to the parties or their attorneys or an opportunity to be heard, cases were dismissed for want of prosecution even though a substantial number of the cases had recent activity; were awaiting the judge’s signature on orders following trial, mediation, or arbitration; were set for trial in 2014; or had already been transferred to other courts following Judge Pratt’s recusal. Enos filed a second criminal complaint with the Harris County District Attorney’s office concerning the en mass dismissals alleging that Judge Pratt illegally purged her docket on the last two days of 2013 to cover up the growing backlog caused by her failure or inability to timely handle the business of the court.

Although Judge Pratt received the most votes in the March 2014 Republican Primary, she did not receive at least 50% of the votes and her name was placed on the ballot for the May 2014 Republican Primary Run-off election. However, on March 28, 2014, after Enos filed a third criminal complaint against her with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Judge Pratt sent a letter to the Governor of Texas announcing that she was immediately resigning from office. Despite her resignation, Judge Pratt’s name remained on the ballot for the May 2014 runoff election, which she lost.

In August 2014, the Commission concluded its investigation into the allegations filed against Judge Pratt. After considering the evidence before it, the Commission entered the following Findings and Conclusions.

Harris County Family Law Center 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Denise V. Pratt was Judge of the 311th
Judicial District Court in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

DELAYS IN RULING

The Bates Case

Who dissents the most on the Houston Courts of Appeals?

How common are dissenting and concurring opinions on the Houston Courts of Appeals?
 

Systematic information both on disposition patterns and opinion production of individual justices is available from the Office of Court Administration. The Houston Courts of Appeals stand out once more, according to statistics published in the most recent Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary, which was released in January.

Kem Thompson Frost continued to distinguish herself as the most independent mind on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals; with a total 30 dissents and concurrences in Fiscal Year ending August 31, 2013. Eighteen of these opinions were dissenting opinions, out of a total 161 written by this jurist, who has since succeeded Adele Hedges as chief justice.

None of her peers on the court wrote more than five separate opinions in the same time period. With the exception of Justice John Donovan, who joined the 14th Court of Appeals on January 1, 2013 (during the fiscal year) replacing Justice Seymore (who did not seek re-election), each member of the court wrote at least one concurring or dissenting opinion. The highest total number was five each for Justices Sharon McCally and Tracy Christopher, and the same number authored by Chief Justice Adele Hedges.  The number of separate opinions by Frost is exceptional in statewide comparison of opinions issued by the members of the fourteen intermediate courts of appeals likewise. 

The First Court of Appeals, which also sits in Houston and hears appeals from the same collection of surrounding counties, has one member with an independent streak likewise: Justice Evelyn Keyes, who wrote 12 dissenting opinions, 2 concurrences, and 1 separate opinion concurring and dissenting in part, for a total of 15 separate opinions for the fiscal year.

Justice Keyes thus contributed almost 40% of the 38 separate opinions produced by her court, which, like the Fourteenth and the Supreme Court of Texas, consists of nine members and is housed in the old Harris County Courthouse which was restored to its former splendor a few years ago. But thanks to Frost, the tally of separate opinions issued by the sister court was higher: 58.

1910 Harris County Courthouse - View from new Civil Courthouse



The First Court has one member who is not a Republican, Jim Sharp, who is facing re-election this year, with three Republican primary contenders vying for the privilege of taking on the lone Democratic incumbent in November: Dan Linebaugh (R), Chad Bridges (R), and Russell Lloyd (R). Sharp authored six dissents, and two other separate opinions, for a total of eight, thus taking second place behind Keyes, followed by Justice Harvey Brown with a total of six. At the other end of the spectrum, Justice Laura Higley did not pen any dissents or concurrences at all, and Justices Jane Bland and Chief Sherry Radack only did so one time each over the course of the fiscal year.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals continues to utilize the services of a retired justice: Hon. Margaret Mirabal, who authored 21 opinions on the merits, one concurrence, and two dissents, for a total of 40 opinions. The First Court, by contrast, had no opinions written by a former justice in FY 2012-13; nor any by a district judge sitting on a case by assignment for that matter. 

The annual opinion output for individual members of two appellate bodies ranges between 110 and 170, with lower totals for those who did not serve on the court for the entire fiscal year (Justices Seymore and Donovan). The total annual output per court is approximately 1200 each.

The official statistics break it down into published and unpublished opinions, but that distinction is not particularly meaningful because all opinions are "published" on the court's website, and even so-called "unpublished" opinions are routinely cited in trial and appellate briefs, even if they do not constitute binding authority. That said, they are cited less often compared to "published" opinions because of their lesser status.

Published means the opinion is included in the Southwestern Reporter, and gets a citable identifier that includes "S.W.3d" with volume number preceding it and page number following it, in addition to the a reference to the court that issued it and the year. Unpublished opinions are cited by Westlaw (WL) or Lexis-Nexis number. Sometimes the URL for the court's pdf version is provided as reference. All appellate opinions are now published in pdf on the courts' websites, with the benefit that the pagination is consistent. This was not the case when HTML versions were available and needed to be copied into a Word, WordPerfect, or similar word-processing file, which oftentimes garbled up or otherwise produced ugly alterations in the page set-up and formatting, assuming it the web version was even acceptable for viewing in various browsers to begin with.

Question addressed: Who are the most active dissenters on the First and Fourteenth Court of Appeals? Level of disagreement of members of appellate courts in Texas, as shown in concurring and dissenting opinions.
Links to: Texas Office of Court Administration and Annual Report on the Texas Judiciary  

Attorney faces disciplinary action over barratry; use of non-lawyer associate to bring in new clients and cases

The State Bar of Texas, through its Commission for Lawyer Discipline, yesterday (Feb 12, 2014) filed a petition with the Harris County District Clerk seeking imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Attorney Ronald Eugene Reynolds by a state district court judge.

The Commission, in a pleading signed by Alison K. Elam, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar, with office address in Houston, recites multiple instances of Attorney Reynolds relying on a named non-lawyer assistant or associate to recruit clients following car accidents for legal representation. The Commission alleges that this was an ongoing pattern of solicitation on Reynold's behalf, and that the attorney, referred to as "Respondent" in the pleading, paid or offered to pay the nonlawyer for his efforts, which were successful in a number of instances.  

The disciplinary petition mentions barratry, but only as one basis for disciplinary action among others. This is presumably because the Commission's role and jurisdiction involves the enforcement of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that governs attorney behavior and practice of law, and not the enforcement of civil or criminal law on the offense of illegal solicitation of employment by attorneys for financial gain. The disciplinary petition does not employ the commonly used nonlegal terms for prohibited barratry: case running or ambulance chasing. Nor does it expressly cite the barratry statutes. 

In the concluding paragraph of the 7-page petition, which is captioned "PRAYER" as is typical for pleadings in Texas state courts, the Commission asks that the Court discipline Reynolds by reprimand, suspension or disbarment "as the facts shall warrant", and to order restitution.

Disbarment is the ultimate penalty. Suspensions vary in time, and may ordered to be actively served (meaning that the sanctioned attorney may not practice law for that time period) and/or probated or probated in part.  

According to his State Bar profile, Ronald Reynolds' law firm affiliation is with BROWN, BROWN & REYNOLDS, P.C.. He practices primarily in the field of personal injury and labor and employment litigation. The commission's pleading do not state that Reynolds used the nonlawyer associate to solicit individuals involved in automobile accidents to represent them as plaintiffs in lawsuit seeking personal injury and/or other damages (rather than to assist them as civil or criminal defendants), but that seems likely. 

The case against Reynolds has been assigned to the 270th District Court, which is presided over by Judge Brent Gamble, a long-serving Republican jurist. Harris County District Court benches are populated by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. But case assignments to those courts are random, to avoid forum/judge-shopping. The same is true of cases filed in county civil courts at law. 

Reynolds is a state Legislator. He represent House District 27 (Missouri City / part of Fort Bend County)

Harris County Family Law Center (photo of building and plaza)

Harris County Family Law Center - Landscpaped Plaza facing North side of
1910 Courthouse (not shown) with Historical Marker

Jury Plaza and Building - Harris County - Downtown Houston

Harris County Courthouse Square

Criminal Justice Center (criminal courts) seen from Jury Plaza

Harris County Civil Courthouse on Caroline

Harris County Civil Courthouse and multi-level parking garage seen from the East

Harris County 1910 Courthouse (photos after restoration and historical marker)

Dome of 1910 Harris County Courthouse

Old Courthouse seen from steps of new Civil Courthouse
with Downtown Ofice Towers: Chase Tower, BofA Center, Calpine Center

View of courthouse from intersection of Fannin and Congress Ave

Harris County 1910 Courthouse, now the seat of two Court of Appeals

301 Fannin St, Houston, TX 77002

Harris County Civil Courthouse: District Courts (Civil Division), County Civil Courts at Law, and Probate Courts; and Photo of Jury Plaza

The above is a true photo of the modern Harris County Courthouse (taken with zoom lens from a couple of blocks West). Compare that to what appears on the county clerk's webpage for one of the County Civil Court at Law judges:

It's apparently an architect's (or artist's) rendering that did not make the cut, -- or win the design competition.

The home page of the Harris County District Courts likewise presents a vision of the courthouse plaza that remained in the design phase.

The Harris County Civil Courthouse was not built the way it's shown on the official website, and the jury plaza apparently had to go without the lone star too; not to mention that that glass-and-steel structure with the curved roof now sits on the South end of the Plaza.

Here is a link to several more photos that show what the new Harris County Jury Assembly facility actually looks like (most of it is not visible because it is underground). There is landscaping at street level, i.e. on the jury plaza above the facility, but no huge Lone State Star, blue or otherwise. A more modest single star was placed at the top of the high-rise courthouse on the West side, where the main entrance is.

 

This is how this state-of-the-art high-rise courthouse, which has become an eye-pleasing enhancement of the Downtown Houston skyline, looks from the South:

Harris County Civil Courthouse - South Side
Criminal Courts Building on the left (partial view)

And, for good measure, here is a view of the civil and criminal courts buildings from the East - Multi-level parking garage (with underground tunnel access to the courthouse) and street-level parking lots in foreground. 

ROSTER OF HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURTS AND CURRENT INCUMBENTS

Source: Courts' website (click this link to check for updates and to use the hotlinks to judge-specific pages and other official court-related information). The above is just a screenshot image.

14th Court of Appeals (Houston) now resides in the restored 1910 Harris County Courthouse

Cupola of former Harris County Civil Courthouse, which
now is the seat of two state appellate courts

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals has nine elected members, whose biographies can be found on the court's website. Their term of office is six years, but new members are often appointed to an unexpired term by the Governor when a sitting justice resigns. Not all of the members are up for re-election at the same time. Intermediate courts of appeal, such as the First and Fourteenth, both of which have their seat at the old (but beautifully restored) Harris County Courthouse in Downtown Houston, hear appeals from both civil and criminal cases. The historic building dates from 1910. Prior to renovation, which took several years, it housed the local Civil District Courts and the Harris County Civil Courts at Law. Those courts moved to the modern skyscraper-with-dome Civil Courthouse on Caroline Street, where they have being doing business since. All courthouses are connected by a tunnel system, as is true of the jury facility, the County Administration Building, and the building on Congress Street that now houses the Harris County Law Library on the first floor (previously on the top floor).    

Current Membership of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (screenshot from 14th CoA's website 2/1/2013)

2/13/2014 update: The composition of the 14th court of appeals has since changed.

Click this link for list of new members with bios and pics. 

A summary of membership changes follows below:

RECENT PERSONNEL CHANGES ON THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

FROST APPOINTED CHIEF 

Jusitic Kem Thompson Frost, the longest-serving member of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, was elevated to Chief Justice of the 14th CoA by Texas Governor Rick Perry in September 2013. Frost was originally appointed (in 1999) by George Bush, when he was Governor of Texas, and subsequently re-elected several times. She is the most independent mind and voice on the court, with numerous dissenting opinions.

SEYMORE SUCCEEDED BY DOVOVAN 

Justice Charles W. Seymore's term ended in December 2013. He did not seek re-election as incumbent of Place 8 on the court, and was replaced by Justice John Donovan, who took his oath of office at the beginning of 2013, having received voter approval in the November 2012 general election. Like many of his appeals-court colleagues, Justice Donovan previously served as a Harris County district court judge. He did so twice. As incumbent of the 61st District Court he was defeated in 2008, when Obama won the contest for the White House and local Democratic newcomers swept many long-time Republicans out of office,or off their benches as it were, in Harris County. But Donovan later staged a comeback as judge of the 113th Court, on which he served for two years prior to moving up to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. District court judges have four-year terms while a full term on the court of appeals lasts six years. Those appointed to unexpired terms however, face the voters much sooner.

THE BROWN SUCCESSION: FROM JEFF TO MARC 

Justice Marc Brown was appointed by Governor Perry in October 2013 to fill the vacancy created by Justice Jeff Brown's promotion to the Texas Supreme Court, also thanks to Rick Perry. There is yet another "Justice Brown" - Harvey G. Brown. Guv. Perry  appointed him to the First Court of Appeals in 2010 where he occupies Place 6 as successor of Justice George C. Hanks, who went on to become a U.S. Magistrate Judge. All three Browns were previously Harris County trial court judges (as was Hanks, and as were many others). Marc Brown served as a criminal district court judge prior to his appointment to the appellate bench, while Harvey Brown and Jeff Brown both sat on civil district court benches. Unsurprisingly, given their appointments by Governor Perry, all three are Republicans.

EDITORIAL NOTE: The information on the membership changes on the 14th Court of Appeals (14thCoA) was last updated 2/13/2014. Such content revisions do not affect the original publication date shown on the blog post.

Houston's First Court of Appeals based in old Harris County Courthouse after massive renovation project that did not alter its appearance much

Formerly home to Harris County Civil Courts, now seat of two Texas Courts of Appeals 

(First and Fourteenth Appellate Districts, which cover the same aggregation of counties)

MEMBERSHIP OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

The First Court of Appeals consists of nine elected members, and hears cases in panels of three. Vacancies on the court are filled by gubernatorial appointment. In 2013, all justices were Republicans save one, Jim Sharp, who won election as a Democrat when President Obama was first elected, and faces re-election in 2014. Like all other intermediate courts of appeals, the First Court of Appeals decides both civil and criminal appeals. 

Current Membership of the First Court of Appeals (Feb 1, 2013 snip of collective pic & bio page on court's website)

NOTE: For updated version of list of justices with bios and photos, click this link to the court's website.
The latest revision took place 1/31/2014.

Dome (outside) and Rotuda seen from the inside looking up

1910 Harris County Courthouse (prior to restoration)