How so? Isn't it Clendennen v Peterson?
There is always an underlying case (or cases) involved, but technically this is a hearing on a complaint filed with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. I don’t know exactly what the Commission is empowered to do in light of a complaint against a judge, but as Broden acknowledges in his recusal motion, a decision adverse to Petersen, before the Commission, does not force his recusal in State v. Clendennen.
(e) "Sanction" means any admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that the person obtain additional training or education, issued publicly or privately, by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 1-a, Paragraph (8) of the Texas Constitution. A sanction is remedial in nature. It is issued prior to the institution of formal proceedings to deter similar misconduct by a judge or judges in the future, to promote proper administration of justice, and to reassure the public that the judicial system of this state neither permits nor condones misconduct.The Commission is also empowered to remove a judge from office.(f) "Censure" means an order issued by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 1-a, Paragraph (8) of the Texas Constitution or an order issued by a Review Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 1-a, Paragraph (9) of the Texas Constitution. An order of censure is tantamount to denunciation of the offending conduct, and is more severe than the remedial sanctions issued prior to a formal hearing.
That gives a flavor of the sort of output of the Commission. Judges may appeal adverse decisions to court, and some do. In re Davis is an example. In re: Terry A. Canales is a Commission review, of a decision to remove a judge from office and bar him from being a judge in Texas.