In Re Sichler

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: May 13, 2024

No. S-1-SC-40160

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
JSC Inquiry No. 2022-111

IN THE MATTER OF
HON. DESERI SICHLER
Valencia County Magistrate Court

Phyllis A. Dominguez
Marcus J. Blais
Albuquerque, NM

for Petitioner The New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission

Julio P. Garcia
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondent

PUBLIC CENSURE

PER CURIAM.

{1} This matter came before this Court on a petition to accept the Stipulation
Agreement and Consent to Discipline (Stipulation) between the Judicial Standards
Commission (Commission) and Hon. Deseri Sichler, a magistrate court judge in
Valencia County.

{2} We granted the petition and approved the terms of the Stipulation adopting the
Commission’s request and Judge Sichler’s stipulation to issuance of a Public Censure.
We now publish this Public Censure in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin in
accordance with our order, the Stipulation, and Rule jsc-36(C)(5) NMRA.

I. BACKGROUND

{3} A complaint was filed against Judge Sichler with the Commission. The
Commission completed its initial investigation, including completion of an informal
conference, which allowed Judge Sichler to personally discuss the allegations with the
Commission. The Commission filed a notice of formal proceedings against Judge
Sichler on August 25, 2023. The Commission and Judge Sichler entered into the
Stipulation. As part of the Stipulation, Judge Sichler admitted to committing willful
misconduct by engaging in the following acts, in violation of the Commission Rules:

A. During Judge Sichler’s 2022 campaign for Valencia County Magistrate
Court Judge, Judge Sichler acted as campaign treasurer and personally
accepted funds on behalf of her campaign, contrary to NMSA [1978,]
Section 1-19-34(A) [(2019)].
B. On or about March 7, 2022, Judge Sichler listed Russel D. Schmidt as her
campaign treasurer on the Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance
portal/Campaign Finance Information System (CFIS) in her bid for
Valencia County Magistrate Court judge but failed to remove him as
treasurer when his consent was withdrawn and then began to act as her
own treasurer until September 16, 2022, contrary to NMSA [1978,] Section
1-19-29(I) [(2019)].
C. On or about March 7, 2022, Judge Sichler created the Committee to Elect
Deseri Sichler and listed herself as the sole contact person for the
Committee. All contact information for the Committee, advertisements and
her website contained her personal contact information including email,
phone number, and mailing address.

Stipulation at 2.1

{4} Judge Sichler agrees that her conduct violated the following Rules of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and committed willful misconduct in office: Rule 21-101 NMRA
(requiring compliance with the law), Rule 21-102 NMRA (promoting confidence in the
judiciary), Rule 21-402 NMRA (requiring compliance with election campaign laws), and
Rule 21-404 NMRA (requiring campaign committees to be established). Stipulation at 2.
Based upon these admitted violations, Judge Sichler agreed to receive a Public
Censure to be published in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin. Id. For the
reasons discussed below, we issue this censure.

II. DISCUSSION

{5} Article VI, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution creates the Commission
and provides that “any justice, judge or magistrate of any court may be disciplined or
removed for willful misconduct in office.” We have defined willful misconduct in office as
“‘improper and wrong conduct of a judge acting in [the judge’s] official capacity done
intentionally, knowingly, and, generally, in bad faith. It is more than a mere error of
judgment or an act of negligence.’” In re Locatelli, 2007-NMSC-029, ¶ 8, 141 N.M. 755,
161 P.3d 252 (citation omitted). In imposing discipline, we must be satisfied that willful
misconduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. ¶ 7. “There need not be

1All references to agreements between the Commission and Judge Sichler, aside from the Stipulation
filed, allude to conversations had between the parties.
clear and convincing evidence to support each and every one of the Commission’s
evidentiary findings. Rather, we must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that
there is willful judicial misconduct which merits discipline.” In re Castellano, 1995-
NMSC-007, ¶ 37, 119 N.M. 140, 889 P.2d 175; accord In re Schwartz, 2011-NMSC-
019, ¶ 13, 149 N.M. 721, 255 P.3d 299.

{6} Judge Sichler agrees that she violated Rules 21-101, 21-102, 21-402, and 21-
404 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Stipulation at 2. While the Code of Judicial
Conduct provides “‘some proof of what constitutes appropriate judicial conduct,’”
violations of the Code “do not control the issue of whether discipline should be
imposed.” Locatelli, 2007-NMSC-029, ¶ 8 (citation omitted). We agree that Judge
Sichler’s conduct merits discipline, and for that reason, she should be formally
reprimanded by censure.

{7} The preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct states, “An independent, fair, and
impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice.” Rule 21-001(A) NMRA. To
promote the public’s trust and to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system,
“[j]udges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times and avoid both
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives.”
Rule 21-001(B). The principles of the Code of Judicial Conduct require a judge to “act at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity,
and impartiality of the judiciary.” Rule 21-102.

{8} We agree that the stipulated facts support the conclusion that Judge Sichler
violated Rules 21-101, 21-102, 21-402, and 21-404 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In
violating the Code, Judge Sichler failed to follow and comply with election campaign
laws and failed to uphold the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judicial election process.

{9} Rule 21-101 requires a judge to “respect and comply with the law, including the
Code of Judicial Conduct.” Rule 21-102 requires a judge to “act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary” and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” See also id.
comm. cmt. 5 (“Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions
of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would
create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in
other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament,
or fitness to serve as a judge.”).

{10} Judge Sichler’s actions violated Rules 21-101 and 21-102 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. Judge Sichler was required to designate a treasurer to file expenditure reports
pursuant to Section 1-19-29(I). The treasurer she named in the expenditure report
withdrew his consent, and Judge Sichler then acted as her own treasurer. This action
was contrary to statute and thus was a violation of Rule 21-101 (“A judge shall respect
and comply with the law . . . .”). Acting as treasurer allowed Judge Sichler to know who
contributed to her campaign and know the monetary amounts of those contributions.
Judge Sichler had intimate knowledge of campaign rules, having sought the office of
treasurer for Valencia County in 2020. Judge Sichler’s conduct created actual
impropriety by violating Section 1-19-29(I) and is contrary to Rule 21-102 (“A judge . . .
shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”).

{11} Rule 21-402(A)(1)(b) requires judges to “comply with all applicable election,
election campaign, and election campaign fundraising laws and regulations.” Rule 21-
402(A)(1)(e) requires that judges, “if intending to accept funds from others or expend
funds in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000), establish a campaign committee
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21-404.” Rule 21-402(A)(2)(a) prohibits a judge from
seeking to discover who has contributed to either the judge’s own campaign or to the
judge’s opponent. Rule 21-404(A) states, in part, that “Candidates shall not personally
solicit or personally accept contributions for their own campaigns. . . . The candidate
shall take reasonable steps to ensure that his or her campaign committee complies with
applicable provisions of this Code and other applicable law.”

{12} Judge Sichler, acting as her own campaign treasurer, violated both Rule 21-402
and Rule 21-404 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 62-19-34(A) of the Campaign
Reporting Act requires judicial candidates to have a treasurer who is not the candidate.
Judge Sichler failed to set up a valid campaign committee. Rule 21-402(A)(1)(e)
requires a judicial candidate planning on accepting donations to set up a campaign
committee pursuant to Rule 21-404. “This rule restricts contributions for campaigns for
judicial office to sources and amounts that do not create an appearance of impropriety.”
Rule 21-402 comm. cmt. 1. Rule 21-404 requires a judicial candidate to set up a
campaign committee to avoid personally soliciting or accepting contributions to the
candidate’s own campaign. Judge Sichler set up a campaign committee through the
Secretary of State entitled The Committee to Elect Deseri Sichler. Judge Sichler was
the sole member of the Committee. She listed her personal phone number, home
address, and personal email as the contact for the committee.

{13} Judge Sichler agrees that the violations of the rules erode the public’s confidence
in her ability to follow the law. The violations also reflect negatively on the New Mexico
judiciary as a whole and are prejudicial to the effective administration of justice.
Pursuant to this Court’s power to discipline judges under the New Mexico Constitution
Article VI, Section 32, and the Court’s power of superintending control under the New
Mexico Constitution Article VI, Section 3, Judge Sichler shall receive a Public Censure.
Acceptance of judicial discipline protects the public, preserves the public’s confidence in
the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judicial system, and enforces the
standards of conduct established by Code of Judicial Conduct. See Rule 21-216 NMRA
comm. cmt. (“Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial . . . discipline
agencies . . . instills confidence in judges’ commitment to the integrity of the judicial
system and the protection of the public.”).

{14} This Court has considered the admitted facts and violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and the approved Stipulation, and we hereby publicly censure Judge
Sichler for willfully violating the established rules and standards that govern every New
Mexico judge’s conduct. We issue this Public Censure to strengthen the public’s
confidence in the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary and to remind
all judges that misconduct which erodes the public’s confidence will not be tolerated.

{15} For the foregoing reasons Hon. Deseri Sichler is hereby publicly censured for her
admitted willful misconduct as set forth fully in the Stipulation which this Court accepted,
adopted, and confirmed.

{16} IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice