Opinion ID: 1058574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suspension Hearing

Text: As a preliminary matter, Judge Shull raises certain due process arguments concerning the manner in which the Commission conducted the suspension hearing. Judge Shull asserts that the Commission violated his due process rights by effectively shifting the burden of proof and requiring him to present evidence at the suspension hearing, and by refusing his request to cross-examine adverse witnesses whose accounts appeared in the Commission's statement of fact. We do not reach the merits of these arguments. Our jurisdiction over the formal charges filed in this Court is purely original in nature. See Va. Const. art. VI, § 1; Peatross, 269 Va. at 444, 611 S.E.2d at 400. The Commission, not this Court, is vested with the statutory authority to determine whether a judge should be suspended with pay until resolution of a pending investigation. See Code § 17.1-911. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the Code has given this Court authority to review the Commission's suspension hearing procedures or the Commission's decision to suspend a judge with pay until final resolution of pending charges. In the absence of constitutional or statutory authority to do so, we are not at liberty to presume such authority. See Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax County, 271 Va. 336, 344, 626 S.E.2d 374, 379 (2006); America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 261 Va. 350, 358, 542 S.E.2d 377, 381 (2001); Humphreys v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 765, 772-73, 43 S.E.2d 890, 894 (1947); Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 629, 102 S.E. 83, 85 (1920). We disagree with Judge Shull that our decision in Judicial Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Elliott, 272 Va. 97, 630 S.E.2d 485 (2006), requires a different result here. In Elliott, we determined that the Commission and a judge charged with misconduct had reached a supervision agreement under the Commission's Rule 15(A)(4) that, if honored by the judge, would foreclose the Commission from filing charges against the judge in this Court. Id. at 121-22, 630 S.E.2d at 497-98. Upon consideration of the record, we further held that because the judge had not violated the agreement, the Commission was foreclosed from bringing a complaint to this Court. Id. at 123, 630 S.E.2d at 498-99. Thus, in Elliott, our determination centered on the question whether the substantive charges filed by the Commission in this Court had already been resolved by the parties' prior agreement. Judge Shull, however, does not ask us to determine whether the substantive charges filed against him in this Court have already been resolved by proceedings before the Commission. Instead, Judge Shull asks, in the form of a due process challenge, that we address matters over which we have not been given constitutional or statutory authority. In the absence of such authority, Judge Shull's due process challenge effectively requests an advisory opinion concerning matters not subject to our review. See Riverside Hospital, Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518, 526 n. 2, 636 S.E.2d 416, 420 n. 2 (2006); Commonwealth v. Harley, 256 Va. 216, 219-20, 504 S.E.2d 852, 854 (1998).