final determination of the appropriate action to be taken in each case. In so doing, we will accord careful consideration the findings of fact and recommendations of the Commission, or its committee, which has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. In re Anderson, 412 So.2d at 746. ¶40. What remains unclear is what consideration, if any, we give to findings of fact and recommended sanctions reached by agreement. Compare Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Williams, 880 So.2d 343, 347 (Miss.2004) (“Although there are unanswered questions regarding the mitigating facts in this case, we accept the recommendation before us, because it comes to us as an agreed recommendation.”) with Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209, 217-18 (Miss.2006) (<HOLDING>). Even though our rules do not contemplate
holding that a joint recommendation is akin to a criminal defendant entering into a plea agreement with the prosecution whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the offense in return for the prosecutions promise of a specific recommended sentence to the judge for consideration holding that the government must be held to a promise made to a defendant during plea negotiations if that promise induced the defendants guilty plea holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing