Las Cruces Municipal Judge James T. Locatelli admits that he let anger and personal feelings affect actions related to his decision to issue contempt of court charges against two attorneys in 2004.
Locatelli apparently lost his temper with both attorneys during a court hearing he called on Oct. 25, 2004.
“I admit to being angry, and will accept appropriate sanctions for that. I do regret letting my personal feelings affect my judicial demeanor,” Locatelli said in a response to the Judicial Standards Commission’s investigation, according to court records.
The commission filed a petition Tuesday with the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking Locatelli’s discipline for improperly issuing the charges and for not recusing himself from the cases. You can read the commission’s petition against Locatelli by clicking here.
The matter began in April 2004, according to the petition, when Locatelli accepted a guilty plea from and sentenced a woman accused of shoplifting.
Sometime after that, the woman hired
District Judge Robert E. Robles scheduled a trial for Aug. 10, 2004. During a hearing that day 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 Robles sided with Milner. The woman then pleaded guilty again and was sentenced by Robles.
The city attorney’s office notified municipal court of the action on Aug. 23, 2004, according to the petition, and Locatelli learned of it in September of that year.
Locatelli set a sentencing hearing in the woman’s case for Oct. 25, 2004, even though his intent had nothing to do with the woman, the commission found. At the hearing, Locatelli presented both attorneys with criminal complaints charging them with indirect criminal contempt of court.
The defendant was present at the hearing, but never called to speak, the petition states.
Before the hearing, Locatelli admitted in a response to the commission’s notice of preliminary investigation, he spent time considering 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.” Locatelli, according to the petition, claimed he “was told that Mr. Jacquez did not challenge Judge Robles’ assumption that the defendant had not been informed of her rights, and did not challenge Ms Milner’s misstatement(s)…”
So Locatelli decided to issue the charges and, during the hearing, lost his temper with the two attorneys.
“I admit I lost my composure and became angry,” the commission’s filing quotes Locatelli as saying in his response.
The criminal complaint against Milner charges that she appealed the shoplifting case despite “knowing that the defendant had plead (sic) guilty to the charges in the municipal court and was not an ‘aggrieved party.’” The complaint against Jacquez states that he entered into the plea agreement in front of Robles despite “knowing that the defendant was not an ‘aggrieved party’ pursuant to N.M. law and that the appeal from the municipal court was contrary to law because the defendant plead (sic) guilty to the charges in municipal court.”
The commission found that Locatelli did not review a tape or transcript of the district court hearing before issuing the charges, and relied only upon what he had been told, so the criminal complaints “were without a factual or legal basis.” In addition, the commission found, Locatelli had no authority to initiate contempt proceedings against either attorney. Neither was involved in the case when it was before him.
“(Locatelli’s) conduct demonstrated bad faith or otherwise exceeded his lawful authority. His contempt proceedings against Mr. Jacquez and Mr. Milner had no legal or factual basis,” the commission’s petition states. “Because (Locatelli) had no jurisdiction over Mr. Jacquez and Ms. Milner for their arguments in the … case before Judge Robles, 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 Sun-News 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 filed a lawsuit in May seeking reimbursement of more than $100,000 in legal fees they accumulated defending themselves. District Judge Jerald A. Valentine denied that request.
About the same time, Robles denied the city’s request to force the judges off cases prosecuted by the city attorney’s office, which sought their recusals because of the pending lawsuit.
In the latest issue, the commission’s petition states, Locatelli decided to dismiss the contempt citations after reviewing on Nov. 4, 2004 the transcript of Robles’ hearing. But instead of immediately dismissing the case, Locatelli scheduled a hearing for Nov. 20, 2004. He later vacated that hearing and set both cases for trial on Nov. 30, 2004, then later rescheduled the trials for Jan. 18, 2005.
Locatelli didn’t file orders dismissing the contempt charges until Dec. 8, 2004.
The commission says Locatelli admitted that the appearance created by his “angry pronouncements” at the hearing in October would have required him to recuse himself from the cases, had he not dismissed the charges.
Based on that admission and the fact that Locatelli did not dismiss the cases until more than a month after he decided to do so, the commission charges him with improperly presiding over the cases when he should have recused himself.
The commission wants the high court to order that all records in the contempt cases be purged. It also wants justices to formally reprimand Locatelli, order him to take an ethics course at his own cost, complete a year of formal mentorship with a district judge, and reimburse the commission’s costs and expenses at an amount to be determined later.
I couldn’t reach Locatelli for comment. His attorney, John M. Brant of
“We’re going to go ahead and proceed in the Supreme Court under the rules, and I’m just going to let that speak for us,” he said.
Locatelli is paid an annual salary of $74,296.