Title: In Re Garcia

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

180 Ariz. 294 (1994) 884 P.2d 180 In re Robert M. GARCIA, Justice of the Peace, South Phoenix Precinct Maricopa County State of Arizona. No. JC-94-0005. Comm. No. 93-CJC-185. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. November 1, 1994. Bryan Cave by Stephen G. Montoya, Phoenix, for respondent. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Gary L. Stuart, Sp. Counsel, Phoenix, for Com'n on Judicial Conduct. OPINION AND ORDER MOELLER, Vice Chief Justice. Respondent Robert M. Garcia was elected to his current term of office as a justice of the peace in the South Phoenix Justice Court in November 1990, and his term will expire on January 1, 1995. On May 26, 1994, the Commission on Judicial Conduct (Commission) filed a nine-count statement of charges against respondent. The Commission, created by Arizona Constitution article 6.1, § 1, is the public body that investigates, makes findings, and recommends disposition in judicial disciplinary cases. Following such recommendations, this court is required to review the record independently. This court is the final judge of law and fact. See In re Ackel, 155 Ariz. 34, 42, 745 P.2d 92, 100 (1987). While the charges were pending hearing before the Commission, respondent lost his bid for reelection as a justice of the peace in the primary election of September 13, 1994. On October 4, 1994, counsel for respondent and special counsel for the Commission presented to the Commission a stipulation to vacate the hearing date and entered into certain additional stipulations. Respondent and the Commission stipulated to the following facts: The respondent and the Commission further agreed that certain conclusions of law flowed from the stipulated facts. In that regard, they agreed to the following: The parties then agreed to make the following joint recommendations to this court concerning the appropriate disposition of the matter: We have recently encouraged the Commission to explore the possibility, in appropriate cases, of entering into stipulations of fact, agreed conclusions of law, and joint recommendations. We have done this in the hope that it might provide a vehicle, in appropriate cases, for an earlier resolution of the issues in the best interests of both parties and, most particularly, in the interests of the public. Since January 1, 1992, a somewhat similar procedure has been authorized by rule amendment in bar discipline cases. In bar cases, if the parties agree on an appropriate disposition, they may file the recommendation with the relevant background information with this court. The court then reviews it and, if it does not order sua sponte review, issues an order approving the joint recommendation. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 53(e). This procedure has been effective in speeding the resolution of some bar discipline cases. A similar rule has been proposed in judicial disciplinary cases and is being processed under Rule 28, Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. We recently expressly approved, by published opinion in a judicial discipline case, the procedure that we are utilizing in this case. See In re Braun, 180 Ariz. 240, 883 P.2d 996 (1994). The court has met and has considered the statement of charges, the stipulations, and the joint recommendations. Under the circumstances of this case, the court approves the joint recommendations, adopts them as the order and judgment of the court, and directs the respondent to comply fully with them. The court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to ensure compliance with this opinion and order. CORCORAN, ZLAKET and MARTONE, JJ., concur. *297 FELDMAN, C.J., recused himself and did not participate in the determination of this matter.