In Re: Angeles Roca, Judge
42 EAP 2016
| Pa. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Judge Angeles Roca (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) was charged before the Court of Judicial Discipline (CJD) for improper ex parte contacts and related misconduct; the CJD found misconduct and ordered permanent removal.
- Roca does not contest the factual findings that she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and brought her office into disrepute, but challenges the lawfulness of the CJD’s removal sanction.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court must review whether the CJD’s sanction was “lawful” under Pa. Const. art. V, § 18(c)(2) — a constitutional standard that directs plenary review on law, clearly erroneous on facts, and asks whether sanctions were lawful.
- The Supreme Court Majority held that “lawful” means the sanction is among those “available” under Article V (e.g., removal, suspension, censure), and that the Court’s review is limited to whether the sanction was warranted by the record.
- Justice Donohue’s dissent argues the CJD, as an Article V court of record within Pennsylvania’s common-law system, must follow stare decisis in imposing sanctions; absence of precedent-based reasoning renders a sanction unlawful.
- The dissent stresses that, unlike criminal sentencing (statutorily constrained) or attorney discipline (where this Court uses precedent), CJD sanctions lack statutory limits and therefore stare decisis is a necessary restraint on discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roca) | Defendant's Argument (CJD/Majority) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CJD sanction is "lawful" only if it is among sanctions listed in Art. V (i.e., "available") | "Lawful" requires conformity with broader legal limits including stare decisis; CJD must analyze and adhere to precedent when imposing sanctions | The constitutional review of sanctions is satisfied if the sanction is among those available and warranted by the record; no freestanding stare decisis requirement | Majority: "Lawful" limited to being an available sanction warranted by the record; Dissent: CJD must follow stare decisis and explain departures |
| Whether the CJD must follow stare decisis when imposing sanctions | CJD, as an Article V court of record in a common-law system, is bound by stare decisis; failure to analyze precedent makes sanction unlawful | CJD need not adhere to stare decisis as a constitutional requirement for lawfulness; comparisons to other courts are of limited usefulness | Majority: No stare decisis requirement; Dissent: Yes, stare decisis is required and lack of it renders sanction unlawful |
| Whether proportionality review requires comparative analysis to prior CJD decisions | Proportionality and lawfulness require comparison with precedent to avoid arbitrary, disparate sanctions | Review limited to whether sanction is "warranted by the record"; analogy to Eighth Amendment narrow proportionality does not mandate cross-case comparisons | Majority: No broad comparative proportionality obligation; Dissent: Comparative precedent analysis is necessary to curb unbridled discretion |
| Whether federal constitutional claims (due process/equal protection) can be reviewed despite sanction being "available" under Article V | "Lawful" must include compliance with U.S. Constitution; this Court must review such claims even if sanction category is "available" | Majority concedes federal constitutional limits apply but confines "lawful" review largely to availability/warranted-by-record | Both agree U.S. Constitution applies; Dissent emphasizes this reinforces a broader meaning of "lawful" |
Key Cases Cited
- Ieropoli v. AC & S Corp., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004) (constitutional language must be given its ordinary meaning as understood by voters)
- In re Merlo, 58 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2012) (Article V sanctions recognized as available for bringing disrepute upon judicial office)
- In re Berkhimer, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (removal is an available constitutional sanction for certain judicial misconduct)
- Estate of Grossman, 406 A.2d 726 (Pa. 1979) (stare decisis as essence of common law courts)
- Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville, 985 A.2d 728 (Pa. 2009) (stare decisis promotes predictability, consistency, and integrity of judicial process)
- Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., 980 A.2d 588 (Pa. 2009) (precedential decisions of this Court bind the Commonwealth)
- Morrison v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 646 A.2d 565 (Pa. 1994) (distinction between "scope of review" and "standard of review")
- In re Melograne, 812 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 2002) (CJD’s authority constrained by other constitutional provisions; CJD lacked authority to disbar)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Eighth Amendment proportionality test framework)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (threshold gross disproportionality inquiry in Eighth Amendment review)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines must be consulted and departures explained)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 48 A.3d 1231 (Pa. 2012) (use of precedent to strive for consistency in attorney discipline)