In Re Angeles Roca First Judicial District Philadelphia County
173 A.3d 1176
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Judge Angeles Roca, a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas family-division judge, made recorded ex parte calls (2011–2012) seeking help from Municipal Court Judge Joseph Waters to influence outcomes favorable to others, including her son’s tax-judgment matter.
- Waters intervened with Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal; Segal took action and Rexach’s default judgment was vacated after a small payment.
- Roca initially misrepresented (to DOJ/Judicial Conduct Board) the extent and number of contacts; after hearing recordings she admitted wrongdoing and did not report Waters’ misconduct.
- The Judicial Conduct Board charged Roca with breaching Canons 2A, 2B (and derivative constitutional provisions), and the CJD found violations and that her conduct prejudiced the administration of justice and brought the judiciary into disrepute.
- The CJD removed Roca from office and barred her from future judicial office; Roca appealed, arguing the sanction was unlawful and inconsistent with prior CJD precedent (invoking proportionality and stare decisis issues).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed whether its appellate role permits reviewing sanctions for lawfulness only, whether the CJD must follow stare decisis in sanctioning, and whether Roca’s removal was warranted by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roca) | Defendant's Argument (CJD/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may exercise de novo review of CJD sanctions | Bruno permits broader supervisory intervention; Court should reweigh sanctions | Review is limited by Article V §18(c)(2) to lawfulness (plenary on law, clearly erroneous on facts, sanctions: whether lawful) | Court rejects de novo claim; Bruno did not alter the constitutionally-prescribed standard of review |
| Whether CJD is bound by stare decisis when imposing sanctions | CJD must follow its prior disciplinary decisions; comparative proportionality required | Stare decisis governs legal holdings, not discretionary sanctions; Constitution grants CJD wide discretion | Court holds CJD is not required by stare decisis to impose sanctions proportional to prior cases; precedent may guide but does not bind |
| Whether comparative-proportionality review is required on appeal | Roca: removal is disproportionate compared to prior cases — unlawful | CJD: sanctions need only be lawful and warranted by the record; proportionality is discretionary | Court holds comparative proportionality is not constitutionally required; appellate review limited to lawfulness and whether sanction is warranted by the record (i.e., not grossly disproportionate) |
| Whether Roca’s removal was lawful / warranted by the record | Removal is unduly harsh; a suspension would suffice given isolated conduct and remorse | Conduct was willful, exploited judicial position, prejudiced administration of justice and harmed public confidence; removal is within CJD discretion | Court affirms: removal was lawful and warranted by the record in light of willful ex parte solicitations and effect on public trust |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bruno, 627 Pa. 505, 101 A.3d 635 (Pa. 2014) (discusses Supreme Court’s supervisory power vs. CJD authority; limited use of King’s Bench power)
- In re Merlo, 619 Pa. 1, 58 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2012) (CJD has broad discretion in sanctions; similarity of misconduct does not mandate identical sanctions)
- In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (discipline serves to repair public trust and guide the judiciary)
- In re Lokuta, 608 Pa. 223, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (discusses factors relevant to sanctioning and deference to CJD’s discretion)
- In re Melograne, 571 Pa. 490, 812 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 2002) (limits on CJD authority where other constitutional provisions grant exclusivity)
- Stilp v. Commonwealth, 588 Pa. 539, 905 A.2d 918 (Pa. 2006) (stare decisis pertains to legal conclusions and rules of law)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (framework for Eighth Amendment proportionality review)
- Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1984) (comparative proportionality review is not constitutionally required)