With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This discipline is in accord with our existing precedent in other cases involving the appearance of impropriety and impairment of public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. See, e.g., In re Adams, 932 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla.2006) (public reprimand appropriate where county court judge had relationship with lawyer who practiced before him creating the impression that the personal relationship influenced his judgment, even though it did not); Maloney, 916 So.2d at 788 (“A public reprimand, as disciplinary action, is consistent with governing precedent regarding sanctions for judicial misconduct where a judge uses the prestige of judicial office to obtain favorable treatment for himself or another individual.”); In re Gridley, 417 So.2d 950, 953 (Fla.1982) (<HOLDING>). For all these reasons, we find that a public

A: holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid
B: holding public reprimand warranted where the judge failed to act impartially when he injected himself and his office into a case by advocating for a defendant
C: holding that no error was committed where issue of whether the defendant had committed another crime was injected into the trial by the codefendant but was immediately followed by the trial courts instructions to the jury that only the counts listed on the indictment be considered
D: holding that when the defendant admitted that he pleaded guilty for reasons other than to have the judge who took his plea sentence him the defendant could properly be sentenced by a different judge
B.