by: Joey Johnson
SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS) — Judge Sheva Sims has been suspended without pay for nine months by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Judge Sims was accused of acting in an impatient and condescending manner towards a litigant, misusing a court-owned vehicle, improperly advocating for a party during an eviction proceeding, and engaging in a pattern of failing to follow the law.
The Court rejected a recommendation from the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that Judge Sims be suspended for a full year.
In December 2011, Judge Sims was appointed to the Shreveport City Court.
Anonymous complaints, complaints filed by litigants, and complaints filed by retired Justice E. Joseph Bleich in his capacity as a supernumerary judge pro tempore of Shreveport City Court necessitated an investigation.
The following accounts are from a news release from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condescending manner
In the eviction hearing, Monarch Realty & Management v. Jermaine O’Neal, Megan Everett appeared in her capacity as the property manager for Monarch Realty.
Everett stated that O’Neal was late paying rent, had an unauthorized pet, and owed court fines.
Judge Sims interrupted for an explanation of what the court fines entailed. Everett explained that the fines were imposed by the Shreveport Environmental Court.
Judge Sims repeatedly distinguished that the Shreveport Environmental Court and the Shreveport City Court are not the same.
Everett also explained that a notice to vacate was given despite the lease agreement containing a waiver provision.
Judge Sims also interrupted to point out that the notice to vacate did not list each alleged violation.
As Everett was trying to explain that a second page was stapled to the notice, Judge Sims interrupted again, eventually remarking, “You making this longer than it needs to be. Everybody here has somewhere to go. As a matter of fact, have a seat. Let me take the next case.”
Judge Sims proceeded to hear approximately 20 other cases before calling the O’Neal case back up and resuming her questioning.
To the question of whether the issues on the property that led to the Shreveport Environmental Court fines had been resolved, Everett said she did not attend the proceeding because she was in City Court for an eviction.
Upon further questioning, Everett confirmed that she did not attend Environment Court because she was unaware she needed to be there instead of City Court. Judge Sims denied the eviction.
As Everett was leaving, O’Neal asked Judge Sims if he needed to pay the outstanding rent for May. Judge Sims called for Everett to return.
When Everett responded that O’Neal could still pay, Judge Sims told him, “She said she’ll accept it. Give it to her now.”
Everett told Judge Sims that she could not receive rent outside of the office, per company policy.
Judge Sims interrupted and said, “The order of the court is for him to tender it to you now.”
Everett asked if the payment included late fees, and Judge Sims said, “I don’t know. I’m not looking at it,” and told Everett to take the money and figure that out later.
Findings
The Judiciary Commission determined that Judge Sims was ‘unnecessarily condescending and exhibited a lack of patience with Everett in an effort to get through a busy docket.
Judge Sims explained that she wanted to be efficient with her docket, and Everett was nonresponsive to her questions.
She further explained that she thought it best to handle other cases and allow Everett to view other litigants, but conceded she could have handled the matter better.
Judge Sims stated that she denied the eviction based on Everett’s inconsistent testimony, but the Commission disagreed.
The Court sided with the Commission, finding:
Judge Sims failed to maintain “high standards of conduct so that the integrity
and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” “respect and comply with the
law … in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary,” and “be patient, dignified, and courteous to all litigants” with
whom she interacts in an official capacity in violations of Canons 1, 2(A), and
3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. See also La. Const. art. V, §25(C)
(discipline may be imposed to sanction “persistent and public conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute”). “While
a judge may be forceful and stern, he or she must remain respectful and in control of
his or her temper – hostile, demeaning or humiliating language is never warranted.”
In re Bowers, 98-1735, p. 14 (La. 12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875, 884. Notwithstanding
that “a judge’s patience is tested when simultaneously confronted with crowded
dockets to be managed and countless difficult decisions to make,” “judges must
strive to be patient in the face of these challenges.” In re Ellender, 09-0736, p. 12
(La. 7/1/09), 16 So.3d 351, 358.
State Supreme Court of Louisiana
Misuse of Court Vehicle
Shreveport City Court purchased a vehicle for court personnel.
While there was no written policy on its use, there was a general understanding that it was not meant for personal use.
The vehicle was kept in a parking spot at the courthouse, and it was customary for a judge or employee to retrieve the key and sign a log stating who checked out the vehicle, the time of checkout, where it was driven, and the time of return.
Judge Sims used the vehicle for weeks while her own vehicle was being repaired, parking it in her space at the courthouse and keeping it at her home overnight and on weekends.
On two occasions, officers with the Shreveport City Marshal’s Office used Fuelman cards to fill the vehicle for Judge Sims when the assigned card could not be located.
Findings
The Commission found that Judge Sims’ use of a court-owned vehicle to commute to and from work, retention of the vehicle on weekends, and her acquisition of fuel through the Marshal’s Office was impermissible personal use of public assets.
Judge Sims agreed that the vehicle should only be used for court business but stated that, because she did not have alternate transportation, her use was “in connection with the discharge of judicial function.”
She believed that, since her only other alternative was to walk, and that deputy marshals had told her it was not safe to do so because she had security issues when walking in the past.
Judge Sims also stated that she did not use the vehicle for personal errands when she drove it home.
The Commission found that Judge Sims’ testimony was inconsistent. Initially stating she did not purchase fuel for the vehicle, then later claiming she did.
The Commission also disagreed with Judge Sims’ assertion that the commute to work is a judicial function and that she abused her position by having the Marshal’s Office supply the fuel.
The court disagreed.
Judge Sims testified that she started using the court-owned vehicle after deputy marshals advised her not to walk since she had been previously accosted.
Then-Chief Deputy Marshal James Jefferson also confirmed that Judge Sims offered reimbursement for gas purchased with deputy marshals’ Fuelman cards.
Improper Advocacy
Judge Sims presided over an eviction hearing in TTA Capital, LLC v. Schkeiry Williams in which the plaintiff sought to evict the defendant lessee, Ms. Williams, for non-payment of rent.
The lease-to-own agreement included provisions that made the lessee financially responsible for any and all needed repairs.
Despite those provisions, Williams stopped paying rent after a tree fell on the house. Williams claimed she told an employee of the property owner, Lynetter Maxfield, about the incident.
Williams claimed the Shreveport Department of Property Standards spoke to Maxfield about the fallen tree, but the plaintiff’s counsel said he was unaware of the contact.
Judge Sims continued the hearing to allow plaintiff’s counsel to obtain more information, stating on the record, “I know you all can contact Property Standards. If not, I’ll have my office do it.”
At the next hearing, Judge Sims heard testimony from Williams and Maxfield, then referred to photographs of the property she said she acquired herself from Property Standards.
Judge Sims instructed the deputy marshal to show the pictures to both parties, stating, “And for the record, so the record is clear, I’ve acquired those on my own from the Property Standards
Division.”
Judge Sims then admitted the photographs into evidence, heard more testimony, and brought Maxfield back to the stand to try to impeach her testimony with documents from Property Standards that were not in the record and had never been seen by either party.
Judge Sims eventually ruled against Williams.
Findings
“The Commission determined that Judge Sims directly requested the documents from Property Standards or directed someone to obtain them on her behalf and that the totality of her actions reflected improper advocacy.”
Judge Sims denied that she did anything to obtain photographs and documents from Property Standards, despite multiple statements in the court records to the contrary.
She stated, “I don’t recall doing anything specifically … I didn’t ask for them.”
Judge Sims said that the Property Standards documents appeared in he office in an envelope her assistant gave her.
She stated that her comments at the hearing meant that she provided them “from the
packet that was delivered to [her] office” and “obtained them [herself] from [her]
assistant.”
The Commission felt that Judge Sims gave circular logic and evasive responses when asked why she felt it proper to introduce and use documents that had appeared in her office from an unknown source.
Judge Sims also testified that there was a cover letter with the documents indicating they were from Property Standards, but that letter was not in the record.
The Commission concluded that Judge Sims appeared to act as an advocate for the defendant when she used evidence she obtained herself to cross-examine Maxfield.
The Court agreed.
Judge Sims failed to perform her duties as an unbiased and neutral arbiter
undermining the integrity of the judicial system. See In re Fiffie, 24-0976, pp. 16-17
(La. 10/25/24), 395 So.3d 738, 749; In re Foret, 14-0526, pp. 6-7 (La. 5/23/14),
144 So.3d 1028, 1032. Her after-the-fact explanations to the Commission are wholly
lacking in credibility when weighed against the evidence before us. Judges must
consider the evidence that the parties present to them, not that they have acquired on
their own.
State Supreme Court of Louisiana
Failure to Follow the Law
The Notice of Hearing alleges Judge Sims failed to follow three provisions of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 321 (C)(1) and (5) states that a defendant accused of a crime of violence or domestic battery, “shall not be released on his personal undertaking or with an unsecured personal surety.”
Judge Sims ordered ten defendants arrested for crimes of violence be released on their own recognizance between 2018 and 2019.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 880(C) states, “No defendant shall receive credit for any time served prior to the commission of the crime.”
Judge Sims granted a defendant who pled guilty to traffic offenses credit for the time he served before the date of the offenses. When the prosecutor brought the error to her attention, Judge Sims said, “I understand. I see that. Thank you.”
Approximately one week later, Judge Sims vacated the sentence and entered a new sentence.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 320(C) states that if a person charged with their second or more DWI must “install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle which he operates” as a condition of bail.
Judge Sims issued a bond for a defendant that did not include an ignition interlock system. She corrected the ruling when the error was brought to her attention.
